Lawmakers on Wednesday voted 212-206 to reject a Republican-led effort to permanently cap the Supreme Court at nine justices, a measure that faced steep institutional hurdles from the start. The proposal, introduced by GOP Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, would have required a two-thirds House majority to pass, followed by Senate approval and ratification by 38 states.
The defeat of the amendment, however, has intensified scrutiny of the nation’s highest court ahead of the November midterm elections. Although the conservative-majority bench has checked some of President Donald Trump’s initiatives on tariffs and birthright citizenship, it has also delivered significant rulings favorable to his administration’s immigration enforcement and other policy goals.
Democrats have argued that the court’s recent jurisprudence reflects political bias rather than legal principle. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland characterized the attempt to freeze the court’s size as a “partisan power grab by MAGA” driven by Republican anxiety over upcoming electoral results.
Public sentiment appears to align with Democratic criticisms. A July 2026 Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that 46% of Americans believe the justices decide cases based on ideology rather than the law. Chief Justice John Roberts has pushed back against those perceptions, stating in May that the court’s role is to apply the law, not to make policy decisions.
In response to the conservative leaning of the bench, Democratic lawmakers have introduced a variety of structural reforms. Some continue to advocate for expanding the number of justices, a tactic President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted in 1937 without success. In April, four Democrats introduced legislation to increase the court to 13 members, and Rep. Al Green of Texas filed a similar bill as recently as May. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina has publicly supported the expansion, arguing that a “baker’s dozen” would help restore constitutional fidelity.
Other reform efforts focus on tenure. In July, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island proposed limiting new justices to 18-year terms, with the president nominating two new justices in the first and third years after each presidential election. Whitehouse argued that regular appointments would make the court more representative of everyday Americans.
Additionally, lawmakers are addressing ethics and transparency concerns. Following allegations against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito regarding undisclosed gifts and conflicts of interest, several bills have been introduced to restrict gifts and require blind trusts for justices and their families. Rep. Raskin has also sought to regulate the use of the “shadow docket,” which allows the court to issue emergency orders without full briefing, while Sen. Chris Murphy has proposed a mandatory code of conduct and an ethics investigations counsel.
Freezing at nine feels like a power grab. Expansion or term limits are the only ways to restore balance.
Wild that 46% think the court is ideological. Roberts needs to do better at defending the institution’s credibility.
13 justices? That seems excessive. Eighteen-year terms are a much smarter, more practical compromise for this mess.