Reform

Court Reform Across Generations Supreme Court reform isn’t a new idea invented by frustrated progressives. It’s a recurring response to judicial overreach that spans American history. 1937: FDR’s court-packing plan threatened to add up to six justices to break conservative obstruction of New Deal programs. The plan failed legislatively but succeeded politically—the Court reversed course. 1960s-70s: Conservative frustration with Warren Court civil rights decisions led to calls for impeachment, jurisdiction stripping, and constitutional amendments. 2020s: Progressive proposals for term limits, court expansion, ethics codes, and jurisdiction stripping respond to the Federalist Society’s capture of the Court. ...

Court Reform Is American Tradition Throughout American history, when the Supreme Court has overreached, threatened democracy, or blocked necessary reforms, presidents and Congress have acted to check judicial power. Thomas Jefferson led the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase and refused to enforce certain court orders. Abraham Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision and appointed five new justices to ensure the Court would uphold Civil War measures. Franklin Roosevelt threatened court-packing in 1937, forcing the Court to reverse course and uphold New Deal legislation. ...

No Single Fix Will Save Us When confronting the Supreme Court’s crisis of legitimacy, reformers often advocate for a single solution: “Just add term limits.” “Just expand the Court.” “Just pass ethics rules.” But here’s the uncomfortable truth: no single reform—however well-designed—will fix a Supreme Court captured by the Federalist Society, funded by dark money, staffed with justices who accept millions in gifts, grant presidents immunity for crimes, dismantle gun safety laws, and overturn precedents based on ideology. ...

The United States Is the Outlier Among established democracies with independent judiciaries and strong rule of law, the United States stands virtually alone in granting supreme court justices lifetime appointments with no mandatory retirement age. Every other comparable democracy has recognized what America refuses to acknowledge: unlimited judicial tenure concentrates too much power in too few hands for too long. ...

The Power Congress Forgot It Had Article III of the Constitution gives Congress an extraordinary power over the Supreme Court—one that could neutralize the Court’s most extreme decisions without adding a single justice, imposing term limits, or amending the Constitution. It’s called jurisdiction stripping, and it works like this: Congress can remove the Supreme Court’s power to hear certain categories of cases, preventing the Court from imposing its will on issues where it has overreached. ...

Taking the Politics Out of Court Appointments Imagine if Supreme Court appointments didn’t dominate presidential elections. Imagine if no single retirement or death could shift the ideological balance of the Court for a generation. Imagine if Americans couldn’t predict how every major case would be decided based on which president appointed which justice. That’s the promise of rotating judicial panels—one of the most innovative and potentially transformative Supreme Court reform proposals. ...

The Only Court in America Without Enforceable Ethics Rules Here’s a fact that should shock every American: The Supreme Court’s nine justices are the only federal judicial officers who are not subject to a specific and binding code of ethics. Every other federal judge in America—from district courts to circuit courts of appeals—faces enforceable ethical rules and potential discipline for violations. All fifty state supreme courts subject their justices to ethics reviews with real consequences. ...

The United States Is Alone When defenders of the Supreme Court’s current structure argue that reform would be “radical” or “unprecedented,” they’re counting on Americans not knowing how other democracies structure their highest courts. The truth? The United States is a global outlier—and not in a good way. Among major democracies, the United States is alone in providing life tenure for members of its highest court. Alone in having no mandatory retirement age. Alone in having no enforceable ethics code with real consequences. ...

Court Expansion: Actually Normal in American History Whenever reform is discussed, critics cry that changing the Court would be “radical” or “unprecedented.” This is historically illiterate nonsense. The Supreme Court’s size has changed seven times in the nation’s first 80 years. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a six-member Court. It grew to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837, ten in 1863, back to seven in 1866, and finally to nine in 1869. For most of American history, the Court’s size tracked with the number of federal circuit courts. But here’s what critics never mention: while the Supreme Court has remained frozen at nine justices since 1869, the rest of the federal judiciary has continued to grow dramatically to meet the nation’s needs. ...

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 Uncomfortable Truth There’s a reality that many in the political establishment find difficult to accept: without Supreme Court reform, virtually no progressive agenda is possible. Not healthcare expansion. Not voting rights protection. Not environmental legislation. Not labor reforms. Not reproductive freedom. Nothing. This isn’t hyperbole. It’s a simple recognition of how power actually works in American government. As long as six Republican-appointed justices hold veto power over the entire government, meaningful reform is dead on arrival. ...