5 U.S.C. § 403

SPECIAL RATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a) Notwithstanding the procedures of section 5305 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act, or similar provision of law, higher minimum rates and corresponding increases in all step rates of each designated General Schedule grade shall be established for law enforcement officers in accordance with the provisions of this section.“(b)(1) Effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 1992, the higher minimum rates to be established are as follows:


“GS–3	Step 4
“GS–4	Step 4
“GS–5	Step 4
“GS–6	Step 3
“GS–7	Step 3
“GS–8	Step 3
“GS–9	Step 2
“GS–10	Step 2

“(2) Effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 1993, the higher minimum rates to be established are as follows:


“GS–3	Step 7
“GS–4	Step 7
“GS–5	Step 8
“GS–6	Step 6
“GS–7	Step 5
“GS–8	Step 3
“GS–9	Step 2
“GS–10	Step 2

“(c) The higher minimum rates and corresponding higher rates for each step rate of each designated grade shall apply to every law enforcement officer in the designated grades (except in the case of any law enforcement officer for whom a higher rate is authorized under section 5305 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act, or similar provision of law) and shall be basic pay for all purposes. The rates shall be adjusted at the time of adjustments in the General Schedule to maintain the step linkage set forth in subsection (b)(2).“(d) Any interim entry-level adjustment under section 209 of this Act [section 529 [title II, § 209] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out as a note above] which a law enforcement officer is receiving shall be eliminated on the day before the effective date of the higher minimum rates under subsection (b)(1).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2023–2025 · leading case: Leblanc v. United States Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Bd. (D.D.C. 2025).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Leblanc v. United States Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Bd. (D.D.C. 2025). · cites it 2× “’ Reply at 12 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 403 (b)(1)(A)). However, as the plaintiffs noted at the April 30, 2025, motion hearing, the structure and function of Inspectors General differs greatly from the PCLOB.”

Vetcher v. Immigr. & Customs Enf't (ICE) (E.D.N.Y 2023). “See 5 U.S.C. § 403 ; 6 U.S.C. § 113 (b); see also 5 U.”

Murray v. Shaw (D.D.C. 2025). “5 U.S.C. § 403 (d)(1)(C). Murray’s various roles and responsibilities “create[] the appearance” that her “governmental responsibilities were significant and necessarily involved discretion regarding several tasks.”

Hannonen v. McCloskey (S.D. Cal. 2025). “Section 403(d) provides 10 that each Inspector General for the relevant agency shall appoint an assistant inspector 11 general to designate a Whistleblower Protection Coordinator who shall: 12 (i) educate agency employees: (I) about prohibitions against retaliation for protected…”

— 5 U.S.C. § 403(d)(C) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.