Members of Congress won a battle to increase their pay. The war will go on.

A federal court has finally weighed in on the sensitive topic of congressional member pay, ruling that lawmakers acted improperly in repeatedly canceling cost-of-living adjustments.

But members who have long groused about their stagnant compensation should not expect a raise anytime soon — if ever.

Congress has repeatedly voted to overrule a 1989 law meant to keep member salaries apace with inflation, keeping their yearly pay fixed at $174,000. But U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Eric Bruggink wrote in an opinion that those votes run afoul of the 27th Amendment, which says any adjustment to congressional pay cannot apply until after an intervening election.

While Bruggink’s ruling was preliminary, it represents a significant victory for a bipartisan group of past and current lawmakers who have been seeking back pay for years of missed salary increases. Many of the plaintiffs have publicly argued that congressional pay simply isn’t high enough to compete with private-sector opportunities for high-achieving Americans.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), one of the plaintiffs, said in a Thursday interview that the ruling made “clear that what we were doing is not constitutional.”

Congress has voted to deny itself an automatic cost-of-living adjustment over 20 times, including every year since 2009, as members flinch from the potential political backlash of voting themselves a raise. Even after nearly two decades of stagnation, House members make nearly $100,000 more than the median American household.

“There’s some irony in the idea that maybe what’s going to finally make this happen is Congress turning to an entire other branch of the government to do something that they themselves could choose to do, and in fact have decided not to,” said Molly Reynolds, a Brookings Institute fellow who specializes in congressional matters.

While the plaintiffs and advocates are celebrating the opinion, the litigation is set to continue for months, if not years. Bruggink said multiple questions still must be litigated that could dictate how much members might be owed, including whether the past COLA cancellations are entirely void or simply delayed in their effect.

“I wouldn’t expect members of Congress to see their next paycheck go up,” said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonpartisan American Governance Institute. “What this court is dealing with is the lawsuit for back pay.”

There is the possibility, however, that current and former lawmakers could be eligible for big checks. Plaintiffs have previously argued that someone like Hoyer, who has served continuously since the COLA law went into effect, is owed as much as $420,000.

Aside from the legal uncertainty, major political roadblocks remain to boosting member pay, even as Hoyer and others hope the opinion supercharges their efforts.

The House remains on track with legislation that yet again would block a cost-of-living adjustment for fiscal 2027 — even as COLA proponents argue that upping member salaries would make lawmakers less beholden to corporate interests or keen to using inside information for profit.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in an interview that she had not yet read the opinion but acknowledged the potentially toxic politics of the issue.

“The American people, they’re working hard, and their wages have just not caught up,” DeLauro said. “We shouldn’t be taking care of ourselves and not helping …the American people.”

Bruggink’s opinion was published the same day the Appropriations panel took up the annual bill dealing with congressional salaries and other Legislative Branch matters.

Hoyer brought up the court opinion during the panel’s debate, advising members that they should expect a final ruling soon. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) cast doubt, however, on any immediate impact.

“We don’t know anything really about the opinion yet,” Cole cautioned.

Eventually, the opinion could give lawmakers just enough legal cover to allow themselves a pay bump. Already this term, the push for a modest raise picked up some momentum as other anti-corruption efforts, such as a congressional stock-trading ban, gained traction.

A December 2024 appropriations package would have made lawmakers eligible for a 3.8 percent pay increase, or about $6,600. At the height of his cost-cutting fervor, Elon Musk torpedoed the effort — only to later support the adjustment on X as a measure that “might make sense.”

When he announced support for the stock-trading ban last year, Speaker Mike Johnson suggested it would be easier for Congress to rally around the ban if members made more money.

“I don’t think we should have any appearance of impropriety here,” he said. “But the other side of it, some people say: Well, look, the salary of Congress has been frozen since 2009. When you adjust for inflation, a member of Congress is making 31 percent less today than they made in that year.”

“It goes down every year,” he added. “Over time, if you stay on this trajectory, you’re going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress.”