Sylvestre v. Minnesota

Before 1967, Minnesota promised retiring judges a pension equal to half the salary of sitting judges at the time of the retired judge's own retirement, but 1967 and 1969 statutes instead capped the pension at half the salary paid to sitting judges specifically at the time of each judge's retirement; six judges (plaintiffs) sought a declaratory judgment that the new statutes did not affect their pensions. Four had already retired before the new legislation, one, Judge Flynn, retired after the statutes took effect, and Judge Underhill had elected retirement before the statutes took effect but continued working past their effective date; the trial court ruled the new statutes did not affect judges who elected retirement before the effective date but did apply to those retiring after, meaning only Judge Flynn's pension would be affected, and the judges appealed.