The Framing Problem

Supreme Court reform faces a messaging crisis. Despite majority public support for term limits and other reforms, politicians treat it as politically toxic. Candidates fear being branded as extremists. Democratic leaders stay silent while the Court dismantles decades of progress.

This isn’t a policy problem—it’s a framing problem. Court reform has been successfully painted as “court packing,” a radical attack on an independent judiciary. Until we reframe reform as what it actually is—defending democracy from a captured institution—it will remain politically unthinkable.

The work of building public support and creating political permission for Court reform is urgent. It’s also entirely achievable.

What the Polls Actually Show

The narrative that Americans oppose Court reform is false. Poll after poll shows strong support for structural changes:

But here’s the disconnect: while the public supports reform, they don’t yet understand why it’s urgent. They see it as a good-government tweak, not the prerequisite for everything else they care about.

That gap—between support for reform and understanding its urgency—is where the messaging work must happen.

Connecting Reform to Kitchen Table Issues

The biggest mistake reformers make is talking about Court reform as an abstract legal issue. “We need to restore balance to the judiciary” doesn’t move voters.

What does move them is connecting Court reform directly to issues they already care about:

Healthcare: The Court has repeatedly attacked the Affordable Care Act. Any future expansion of healthcare access—from a public option to drug price reforms—will face the same six-justice wall. You can’t have universal healthcare without Court reform.

Climate: The Court gutted the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions in West Virginia v. EPA. Every ambitious climate policy will meet the same fate. You can’t address climate change without Court reform.

Reproductive Freedom: After Dobbs overturned Roe, federal legislation to restore abortion rights would face immediate legal challenge. The same justices who eliminated a 50-year constitutional right won’t hesitate to strike down statutory protections. You can’t restore reproductive freedom without Court reform.

Voting Rights: The Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County and continues to enable voter suppression. Federal voting rights legislation would face certain destruction. You can’t protect democracy without Court reform.

Economic Justice: The Court blocks labor protections, consumer safeguards, and economic regulations at every turn. You can’t build an economy that works for working people without Court reform.

This is the message: Court reform isn’t competing with these priorities—it’s the foundation for all of them.

The Language Matters

Words shape how people understand issues. The opponents of reform understand this, which is why they relentlessly frame any change as “court packing.”

Reformers need equally disciplined language:

Don’t say: “Court packing” or “expanding the Court” (sounds like manipulation)

Do say: “Court reform,” “rebalancing the Court,” or “fixing the Court” (Hence the title of this blog!)

Don’t say: “We need to pack the Court to get our way” (sounds partisan)

Do say: “We need to fix a broken Court that’s blocking what Americans voted for”

Don’t say: “The Court is too conservative” (sounds like partisan whining)

Do say: “The Court is captured by special interests” or “The Court is blocking democracy”

Don’t say: “Adding justices” (sounds technical and arbitrary)

Do say: “Ensuring the Court represents America” or “Ending minority rule over the majority”

The frame should always be: defending democracy from an institution that has been captured and corrupted, not attacking an independent court.

Making It Safe for Candidates

Currently, most Democratic candidates won’t touch Court reform because they fear being destroyed as radicals. This creates a vicious cycle: without candidates talking about it, voters don’t hear about it; without voter demand, candidates stay silent.

Breaking this cycle requires creating political permission—making it safe, even advantageous, for candidates to campaign on reform.

How to Create Political Permission:

Bottom-up pressure: Voters need to ask about Court reform at town halls, in questionnaires, on social media. When candidates see that voters care, they’ll respond.

Elite validators: When respected figures—former judges, constitutional scholars, civic leaders—endorse reform, it signals legitimacy. OpEds from credible voices provide cover for politicians.

Successful examples: When candidates run on Court reform and win, it demonstrates viability. Early adopters prove it’s not political suicide.

Connected messaging: When reform is tied to popular issues like healthcare and climate, candidates can talk about it as part of their broader agenda, not as an isolated “radical” position.

Reframe the risk: The political risk isn’t supporting reform—it’s explaining why you let a minority-appointed Court block everything voters elected you to do.

The Messaging Must Be Sustained

One-off arguments for Court reform won’t work. This needs to be a sustained, multi-year messaging campaign that fundamentally shifts how Americans understand the Court.

What sustained messaging looks like:

Constant connection: Every time the Court issues a destructive ruling, connect it to the need for reform. “This is exactly why we need to fix the Court.”

Multiple messengers: Not just activists, but elected officials, opinion leaders, academics, and community voices all making the case from different angles.

Storytelling: Personal stories of how Court decisions have harmed real people. Not legal abstractions, but human impacts.

Repetition: The same core messages, over and over, until they become conventional wisdom. “The Court is broken and blocking democracy” should be as familiar as any political talking point.

Preemptive framing: Don’t wait for opponents to frame reform as radical. Proactively frame it as defending democracy before they can define it.

From Unthinkable to Inevitable

Political change follows a predictable pattern. Ideas move from unthinkable to radical to acceptable to popular to inevitable. Court reform is currently stuck between “unthinkable” and “radical” in elite political circles, even as it’s already “acceptable” to most voters.

The work of messaging and framing is about accelerating that journey—making Court reform feel not just possible but necessary and urgent.

This doesn’t happen by accident. It requires intentional, strategic communication that:

  • Connects reform to issues people already care about
  • Uses language that frames reform as defending democracy
  • Creates political permission for candidates to lead
  • Sustains the message until it becomes conventional wisdom

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority isn’t going to moderate. They’re going to keep blocking progress until they’re stopped. The question is whether reformers can build the political will to stop them—and that starts with how we talk about the problem.

Conclusion: Words Matter, But Action Matters More

Reframing Court reform from “radical” to essential is critical work. But messaging alone won’t win this fight. It has to be paired with:

  • Organizing voters to demand reform
  • Pressuring elected officials to take a stand
  • Building coalitions across issue areas
  • Preparing detailed reform proposals
  • Creating a political infrastructure ready to act when the opportunity comes

The messaging work isn’t separate from the organizing work—they’re inseparable. Good framing makes organizing easier. Strong organizing validates the message.

Court reform will become politically possible when enough Americans understand that it’s not about punishing the Court—it’s about saving democracy. And when enough politicians understand that supporting reform isn’t political suicide—it’s political necessity.

That transformation won’t happen on its own. It requires reformers to be as strategic and disciplined about messaging as they are about policy.

Because in politics, the story you tell matters as much as the truth you’re telling.