Proposed Supreme Court changes back in the headlines

Once again, the subject of changing how many justices sit on the Supreme Court—and for how long—is in the news.

On Aug. 13, 2026, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) spoke at the National Association of Black Journalists conference about the various changes he felt were needed at the Court. Jeffries was upset with the Court’s April 2026 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down a state law that allowed the use of race as a determining factor in creating election districts, and a related decision about districts in Alabama, Allen v. Millgan (2026)

“The Supreme Court steps in and overturns that decision [in Alabama], it tells me that they don't have the credibility for us to move forward, acting like everything is okay and the status quo is acceptable. It's not. And we're going to push for dramatic reform of the Supreme Court,” Jeffries said.

Among the various Supreme Court changes proposed recently, and in prior years, are establishing term limits for the justices; changing the number of justices on the bench; creating an enforceable ethics code for justices; and regulating cases appearing on the Court’s emergency or interim docket.

Some of these ideas are hardly new. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, President Joe Biden formed a presidential Supreme Court commission to study possible reforms. In 2015, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee openly discussed Supreme Court term limits during his primary campaign. There was a robust academic debate on term limits nearly a decade earlier in the aftermath of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s death.

And famously, President Franklin D. Roosevelt fell short in his 1937 attempted to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices

Limiting the time served by the justices on the Supreme Court is perhaps the idea most discussed among reformers.

Article III of the Constitution defines the Supreme Court’s basic role in the separation of powers and the lifetime tenure of the justices. “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” it states. And the justices serve as long as they show “good behavior” in office.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton supported the idea of lifetime service from the justices to serve the principle of judicial independence. “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government,” Hamilton wrote. “It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”

The 2021 Biden commission report identified several arguments made by Supreme Court term limits supporters. Supporters argued that the United States is the only democracy without term and age limits for high court justices. Also, many supporters believed a staggered system where each justice was limited to 18 years on the bench would allow a president to appoint two justices during a four-year presidential term, thus reflecting the voice of the electorate in choosing the president and senators who take part in the nomination and confirmation process.

Lifetime tenure supporters countered that the Constitution’s text and history strongly supported the system of service during “good behavior” in office, and a staggered system with term limits would make the Supreme Court nomination process more political as a recurring election issue.

One of the key challenges for supporters of Supreme Court term limits is the method of implementing change. The Congressional Research Service, in a December 2023 report, raised questions about the ability of Congress to set term limits by statute and not by a constitutional amendment. “Because Article III guarantees that Supreme Court Justices ‘shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,’ most commentators agree that Congress could not impose a term or age limit for Supreme Court Justices without amending the Constitution,” wrote legislative attorney Joanna R. Lampe.

Others argue that Congress can pass laws to create an active/senior justice model where justices serving on the Supreme Court would become senior justices after 18 years and move on to other duties in the judicial system. Justices with senior status would be fully compensated members for life and able to exercise official duties on and off the bench for as long as they choose.

If a term limits law survived the Senate filibuster and passed Congress, opponents could still bring a challenge to the law in court.

Changing the Number of Justices and Other Ideas

Unlike the idea of term limits, the Constitution grants Congress the power to choose how many justices serve on the Supreme Court—a power that Congress has exercised many times across American history. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the first Supreme Court, when Congress decided that six justices should serve. The number of justices on the Court varied from 1802 to 1869. A Judiciary Act sponsored by Sen. Lyman Trumbull in 1869 put the number at nine Justices. Since then, the number has remained stable.

Some proponents of reform would like to see the number of Supreme Court justices increased for several reasons. During a House hearing in May 2026, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D- Md,) offered one rationale for a change to 13 justices to match the number of federal circuits in America. But a bill changing the size of the Court is still subject to a filibuster and would face opposition.

In 1937, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill sponsored by President Roosevelt failed in the Senate, where the Democrats held 76 out of 96 seats. The bill would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice who was over 70 years of age.

Also, creating an enforceable ethics code for the justices faces its own set of problems. In November 2023, the Supreme Court adopted a voluntary code of conduct. However,  the ability of Congress to sanction the justices is limited by the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution bars Congress from altering the justices’ compensation. The House could impeach a Supreme Court justice, as it did when Justice Samuel Chase faced charges in the Senate in 1804, but the removal decision would still be left in the hands of the Senate. Chase was acquitted by the Senate, setting a precedent that justices shouldn’t face impeachment for political reasons.

Congress could have role in determining how cases are presented to the Court’s non-merits interim or emergency docket. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Judicial procedures are generally based on statutes or court-created rules rather than constitutional mandates, and Congress can alter those procedures through legislation.” In May 2026, Rep. Raskin offered several reforms that would require the Court to explain in writing how it issued orders on the docket and would create a panel federal appellate judges to decide which emergency cases go before the justices.

Such efforts likely would face resistance in Congress. Reforms also could raise separation of powers issues, especially about the ability of Congress to compel the Supreme Court to write non-merits opinions on short notice.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.