While American families pinch pennies to put gifts under the Christmas tree, current and former congressional lawmakers are suing taxpayers for $69 million in back pay—a brazen cash grab that would make the Grinch blush.

With just a few weeks left in the lame-duck session, Congress has yet to block the automatic pay increase set to take effect in January. Unless Congress votes to prevent the increases, lawmakers are in line for up to a 3.8 percent raise, boosting the basic salary by $6,600 up to $180,600. That would increase outlays by nearly $4 million next year and also boost long-term taxpayer liabilities for congressional pensions, which are calculated based on a member’s salary.

While this pay increase is concerning on its own, an even larger financial risk looms: a lawsuit filed by current and former lawmakers seeking to recover automatic raises that Congress has purposefully declined since 1994.

In a recent decision, the judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed while narrowing its focus to freezes imposed since 2018 and excluding any impact on pensions. Even so, with the national debt surpassing $35 trillion, taxpayers could soon face the burden of $69 million for retroactive pay increases for lawmakers already living far above the economic struggles of their constituents.

That lawsuit was filed in March 2024 by former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on behalf of Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and former Reps. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Tom Davis (R-Va.), Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), and former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).

These plaintiffs argue that blocking automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) violates the 27th Amendment, which was designed to delay salary changes until after an election. But this interpretation misrepresents the Amendment’s intent: James Madison wrote it to prevent Congress from unilaterally increasing its own pay immediately, not to guarantee automatic raises.

Without these strategic salary freezes, congressional compensation would be much higher today. Instead of the current $174,000, the Congressional Research Service estimates a rank-and-file member would be earning $243,300—far above the average American’s income. In total, the pay freezes implemented since 1994 have saved taxpayers over $600 million.

The financial impact of these freezes has extended beyond the immediate payroll. Since congressional pensions are based on a member’s highest average salary over three years, maintaining current pay levels has reduced the federal government’s long-term pension liabilities. Although exact savings are difficult to quantify, they could easily reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

The plaintiffs behind the lawsuit overlook the spirit in which Congress blocked these raises. The 27th Amendment was meant to protect taxpayers. Congress opted to freeze salaries to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, particularly when economic downturns laid heavy on everyday Americans.

The timing of this lawsuit could not be more tone deaf. As American families struggle with soaring costs and financial instability, it’s troubling to see current and former lawmakers—many of whom already enjoy substantial benefits—demanding back pay from the taxpayers. If this case succeeds, the resulting $69 million payout would only deepen the federal deficit, now amounting to an astonishing $34 trillion and climbing.

Congress has a sacred trust to steward taxpayer funds wisely, and blocking past pay increases was a commendable act of fiscal restraint in times of economic uncertainty. As lawmakers now deliberate in a lame-duck session, they should prioritize taxpayer interests and block next year’s automatic raise —especially as many Americans continue to struggle with inflation.

In the spirit of the season, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit–including some former lawmakers–who have collected salaries well above the U.S. median, should reconsider their demand for back pay, which the taxpayers they were elected to serve will ultimately be forced to pay.