can the supreme court change the constitution

A version of this Voter Vital was first published on March 2, 2022. It was updated on September 22, 2022.

The Vitals

The expiry of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Trump'south determination to put a successor in identify quickly has focused new attention on the Supreme Courtroom. In recent presidential campaigns, Republicans more than Democrats have made selecting federal judges, specially Supreme Court justices, a acme outcome. Some Democrats are talking about enlarging the court if the Senate confirms a Trump nominee and Democrats take control of the White House and both legislative chambers. Earlier in the campaign, some Democratic candidates proposed changes to the size of the Supreme Court and the tenure of its members.

Congress hasn't changed the court's size—nine justices—since the mid-19th century. The justices, similar about half the roughly ii,000 federal judges, take tenure during what the Constitution calls "skilful Behaviour"—essentially for every bit long as they want to serve, field of study only to rare legislative impeachments and removals. Unsettled is whether Congress could limit justices' tenureon the Supreme Courtas long as it preserves their tenure equally judges by reassigning them to other federal courts.

It typically takes a crunch to generate support for major change to the federal courts, but some Democrats have vowed to push the issue if Trump fills RBG's seat after Republicans blocked Obama's nominee in 2022.
The Constitution specifies no size for the Supreme Court. Congress settled on nine in the late 1860s to match the number of judicial circuits.
Supreme Court justices have been serving longer terms, with a median term length of well-nigh 26 years since 1981.

A Closer Look

A review of competing proposals

Interest groups and candidates offer both partisan and non-partisan proposals.

Calculation Seats as Payback:

In the partisan approach, Democrats—once they are in control of the White House and Congress—would enact a statute adding two seats to the courtroom, whose Democratic appointees would counter the nigh recent Republican appointees. Former Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect in March 2022, as did progressive groups such as Take Back the Court and Demand Justice .

Advocates are frank about their motives. Republicans, they say, stole a court seat from the Democrats in 2022 when they refused to consider Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee to supercede the tardily Antonin Scalia, and then in 2022 filled the vacancy with Neil Gorsuch on a party-line vote. Add-seat advocates also point to Brett Kavanaugh'due south controversial confirmation amid claims that neither the Justice Department nor the Senate fully investigated charges of misbehavior from his high school days and beyond.

More broadly, critics note that presidents who came to part despite losing the pop vote (Trump, decidedly) appointed four of today's five conservative justices – and Senate confirmation of RBG's successor would make it one more. And while senators historically accept confirmed justices by margins large enough to represent a majority of voters even given the Senate's constitutional malapportionment, the senators who confirmed Justices Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh represented less than half the population. A court so constituted would arguably face a legitimacy crisis were it to start overturning legislation enacted by a popularly elected Democratic president and Congress. (I offered that analysis here, while rejecting current calls to increase the court's membership.)

A Supreme Court of xv justices

Other proposals accept at least a veneer of nonpartisanship. They reflect an mental attitude of "do something" about the courtroom short of a partisan restructuring. Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a contender for the Democratic nomination in 2022, proposed a Supreme Court of 15 justices. Borrowing from a draft law review commodity, he suggests 10 justices divided as between those "affiliated with" ane or the other of two major parties; those ten would select five more. That organisation, he claimed in the October Autonomous fence, would "depoliticize the courtroom," adding that "Nosotros tin't go on like this, where every single time there is a vacancy, we have this apocalyptic ideological firefight over what to do next." (The same draft law review article as well proposed a rotating ix-member court drawn by lot from the 170 or so courtroom of appeals judges, but this proposal has received little attending.)

Fourth dimension limits on justices

More than common nonpartisan proposals would impose term limits on justices. A bipartisan group of judges and law professors began to push button this idea in 2009, and long-time and highly regarded political analyst Norman Ornstein has promoted it at least since 2022 and renews the call regularly.

Proponents suggest an 18-year term followed past, if the justice wishes, service on a lower court to honor the constitutional promise of proficient-behavior tenure. Fully implemented, that arrangement would produce a Supreme Court vacancy every ii years (barring unanticipated openings). That, say advocates, would lower the temperature of confirmation battles. Both sides would realize that the nominee would not exist on the Courtroom for the quarter century or more that has become the norm. What's more, regular turnover would deter the search for young, less-experienced nominees who might serve two or more decades, and it would bring new blood more frequently to an institution that was created when average life spans were much shorter than now.

Major questions

Is in that location any ambition for irresolute the Supreme Court?

It typically takes a crisis to generate back up for major change to the federal courts. Until now there has been footling prove today of public appetite for such modify, but the rush to fill RBG's seat late in the election year appears to have whetted the ambition. The size of the Supreme Courtroom came up, albeit obliquely, in the 2022 Democratic debates, in detail during the 12-candidate October contend, and the commentariat occasionally raises the matter. Several Democratic senators in a Supreme Courtroom cursory pointed to a May 2022 Quinnipiac University national survey that they claimed showed "a majority now believes the 'Supreme Courtroom should exist restructured in society to reduce the influence of politics.'" But the survey question gave no definition of "restructured" and supporters registered just a blank bulk. A Marquette Academy Constabulary Schoolhouse national survey in October 2022 also included a long banking company of questions near the court. Nigh relevant, it found that well-nigh 3-fifths opposed "increase[ing] the number of justices," and that even among committed Democrats (as opposed to "Lean Autonomous"), support was evenly split. By contrast, nearly iii-quarters favored term limits regardless of party.

Every bit the presidential entrada kicks into higher gear—and with the court now hearing arguments and somewhen issuing decisions on polarizing issues such as transgender rights in employment and the fate of non-citizens brought to the country equally children—proposals to overstate the court or trim its members' tenure might proceeds traction and motion the entrada beyond Republican boasts nigh filling vacancies and Autonomous pledges to appointRoe-sympathetic justices.

Would enlarging the Supreme Court produce quid pro quos?

Adding seats to the court could precipitate a game of tit-for-tat. Upon gaining control, one party would expand the court, and after the adjacent election, the other political party would slim it dorsum down to size or enlarge it even more. Such "rinse and echo" politics would be plush for the courtroom, creating if nothing else, full employment for the court's carpentry shop as it reconfigured the courtroom'south bench every few years.

Is anything sacrosanct about a nine-seat Supreme Court?

The Constitution specifies no size for the Supreme Court, which has varied from v to ten justices, depending on the number of judicial circuits. A major task of Supreme Court justices until the late nineteenth century was to travel about their assigned circuits, trying cases in the old excursion courts, the system'south major trial courtroom until 1891. Congress settled on ix circuits in the late 1860s and thus nine justices.

Despite this nine-by-happenstance, some speak of a 9-member courtroom as a Goldilocks ideal—not as well large, not too small. In opposing Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 plan to add justices to the court, Primary Justice Charles Evans Hughes warned about "more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to hash out, more judges to exist convinced and to decide. The present number of justices is thought to be large enough so far as the prompt, acceptable, and efficient bear of the work of the Court is concerned."

Of the 54 state and territorial high courts, 29 have seven members. Only 10 have ix, and none has more than nine. Judgeships on the 13 federal courts of appeals range from six to 29 with a median size of xiii, but those courts practise almost all their work in randomly selected 3-judge panels. Having three-justice panels decide cases for the unabridged Supreme Courtroom would exist unworkable because losing litigants would inevitably entreatment a console decision to the unabridged court, prompting satellite disputes most whether to rehear the case—and would probably violate Article III's mandate for "ane Supreme Court." The Uk's 12-fellow member Supreme Courtroom works mainly in panels. The Canadian Supreme Court and Australian High Court accept 9 and 7 judgeships, respectively.

Is the proposal to add together seats to the Supreme Court and to have some justices engage others constitutional? Is it practical?

Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to modify the size of the Supreme Court. And a statute prescribing some form of political party amalgamation would withstand ramble scrutiny. Department 251(a) of Championship 28 provides that no more than five of the 9 U.S. International Trade Court judges may "exist from the same political party." The website of the Trade Court, though, makes no mention of its political party requirement, a reflection perhaps of a general distaste for the idea.

Less debatable is whether the Constitution would countenance some justices appointing other justices, given Article II'due south mandate that the president, with Senate approval, appoint "Judges of the supreme Court." It leaves Congress the discretion to "vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they remember proper," in the president, the courts, or executive branch officials.

The 5-v-5-member Court programme would likely strike virtually legislators—two professors' heavily footnoted pleas non withstanding—as Rube Goldberg judicial-machinery tinkering that would undermine lines of accountability for the justices selected by the other justices.

What would term limits accomplish?

Justices take been serving longer terms. This table groups justices appointed since Congress settled on a nine-fellow member Supreme Courtroom.

Term limits and regularly recurring vacancies might tone downwards the epic Supreme Court confirmation battles that have occurred roughly twice every eight years. But they might instead make knock-down, drag-outs a recurring part of the political landscape. An election preceding the end of a swing justice's 18-year term could thrust the court into election yr battles more intense than we've already seen.

And what almost unanticipated effects? Would, for case, justices whose terms are virtually to finish exist more willing to hear a case on which normally they might defer action to let the issue percolate in the courts of appeals?

The bigger question

That reasonable people are fifty-fifty debating these proposals speaks to the degradation of the federal judicial appointment process at all levels, a pass up that has been edifice steam for several decades. The one time near-ministerial chore of appointing and confirming federal judges has stretched from one or two months into sometimes year-long ordeals, even for not-controversial nominees.

Both parties accept undermined the guard rails that that one time pushed presidents and senators to seek judicial candidates within some wide mainstream of ideological boundaries, even allowing for occasional outliers. Democrats killed the filibuster for most nominees, and Republicans finished it off for Supreme Court candidates and, to kick, ended the abode-state senator (of either party) veto of circuit nominees that Republican senators exploited relentlessly to block Obama assistants appointees.

Arraign rising partisan polarization for the broken process. But Republicans should acquit extra responsibility for their unprecedented stonewalling of President Obama'due south judicial nominees after Republicans took control of the Senate in 2022. GOP senators took hostage Justice Scalia'south vacated seat and take used verbal contortions to justify confirming a nominee for any 2022 vacancy that might occur. That Senate in 2022-16 also confirmed far fewer appellate and trial court judges than did Senate majorities during divided government in previous administrations' final two years. That obstructionism set up the Trump administration's confirmation blitz—peculiarly at the Supreme Court and court of appeals levels—seating 53 very conservative appellate judges for which the 2022 popular vote arguably provided no mandate.

Pack-the-court proposals that would normally seem bizarre are understandable in today's partisan climate. If the federal judiciary becomes a 21st-century version of the 1930s judiciary that thwarted a pop push for change, they may fifty-fifty get necessary.

Dig Deeper

Judicial appointments in Trump'due south first three years: Myths and realities

A December 24 presidential tweet boasted "187 new Federal Judges have been confirmed nether the Trump Administration, including two great new United States Supreme Court Justices. We are shattering every record!" That avowal has some truth but, to put it charitably, a lot of exaggeration. Compared to recent previous administrations at this same early on-fourth-year indicate […]

Recess is over: Fourth dimension to confirm judges

As information technology reconvenes later on its summer recess, Congress faces the prospect of a partial government shutdown past month'due south end. Federal courts are already partially shutdown. Of 852 federal district and excursion judgeships, 87 were vacant on September 6. Thirty-viii of the 49 pending nominees accept been waiting longer than has Estimate Merrick Garland, who was […]

Pack the Court? Putting a pop imprint on the federal judiciary

In 1996, to head off calls to impeach a life-tenured federal judge for ill-considered remarks about law officers, Chief Justice William Rehnquist cautioned that "judicial independence does not mean that the state will exist forever in sway to groups of non-elected judges." He recalled Franklin Roosevelt'southward failed 1937 proposal to pack the Supreme Court past […]