How to reform Supreme Court
Executive summary
Debate over Supreme Court reform in 2024–2025 centers on three recurring proposals: expand the Court’s size (“court‑packing”), impose term limits, and adopt a binding ethics code; advocacy groups and scholars have advanced combinations of these ideas as responses to controversial rulings and declining public confidence [1] [2]. Major legal organizations, think tanks and political figures—including commissions convened under President Biden—have analyzed the merits and legality of reforms while warning of political backlash and constitutional hurdles [2] [1].
1. Why reform is on the table: high‑stakes decisions and public concern
Reform momentum follows a string of consequential 2024–2025 term decisions that advocates say reshaped state policy across voting rights, employment and healthcare and prompted alarm from civil‑society groups about the Court’s power and impact [3] [4]. The Brennan Center and other scholars argue that the Court’s increased visibility and a decline in public confidence make changes like term limits and an enforceable ethics code “urgently needed” to restore faith in the judiciary [1].
2. The main reform options and what proponents claim they fix
Three reforms dominate the public debate: enlarging the Court (changing its size), imposing staggered term limits rather than lifetime tenure, and adopting a binding ethics code for justices. Proponents say expansion could rebalance ideological skew; term limits would regularize appointments and reduce high‑stakes confirmations; and an enforceable code would address concerns over recusals and outside income [2] [1]. The Brennan Center explicitly lists term limits and an ethics code among “critical steps” to rebuild trust [1].
3. Legal and political obstacles that reformers face
Analysts stress legal complexity and political risk. Changing the Court’s size requires congressional legislation that would likely provoke intense partisan retaliation and reciprocal reforms if power flipped—echoes of the 1937 court‑packing controversy and later failed amendments to fix the Court at nine justices [2]. The Presidential Commission convened under Biden studied these arguments and produced a report assessing legitimacy and legality, signaling that reforms are neither simple nor devoid of precedent concerns [2].
4. Term limits: design choices and tradeoffs
Term limits are framed by supporters as less disruptive than packing: staggered 18‑ or 18‑to‑20‑year terms would guarantee regular appointments while preserving judicial independence, advocates say [1]. Critics — including some former officials and diverse legal scholars who debated the issue publicly — warn that any binding limit must be carefully tailored to avoid unintended consequences and constitutional challenges; the Hopkins forum showcased these competing expert evaluations [5].
5. Court expansion: history, promise and peril
Calls to expand the Court reappear when one party perceives an enduring disadvantage. Historical attempts have failed or produced backlash (notably in the New Deal era), and recent public commentary from figures such as Eric Holder revived the option politically, with polls and media outlets treating expansion as an electoral‑contingent lever [6] [2]. Expansion promises quicker structural change but carries a high risk of tit‑for‑tat escalation that would further politicize the judiciary [2].
6. Ethics code and procedural fixes: the least contentious path
An enforceable code of conduct for justices draws broad support across the reform spectrum because it targets clear problems — recusals, transparency and outside activities — and does not require constitutional amendment or altering the Court’s composition [1]. The Biden administration’s proposals and multiple expert panels have emphasized ethics rules as achievable reforms that can improve public confidence without radical institutional overhaul [5] [1].
7. How courts and cases shape the reform calculus
Observers point to the Supreme Court’s docket and the kinds of rulings issued—emergency “shadow docket” decisions and a flurry of major opinions in the 2024–2025 term—as the proximate causes driving reform debates [7] [3]. Policy‑oriented groups like Democracy Forward and Alliance for Justice frame reform as necessary to “limit the damage” of certain rulings and to protect rights that may be narrowed by recent decisions [8] [4].
8. What reformers and skeptics should weigh right now
Reform advocates must weigh institutional durability against short‑term political gain: term limits and ethics reforms have scholarly and political traction as less destabilizing, while expansion offers immediate rebalancing but risks long‑term politicization and legal battles [2] [1]. The Presidential Commission’s analytical approach and public forums featuring both progressive and conservative voices underscore that any path forward requires careful design to avoid unintended consequences [2] [5].
Limitations: available sources do not mention specific bill text, vote counts, or judicial reactions to hypothetical reforms; readers seeking legislative language or up‑to‑date bills should consult congressional records and follow reporting by legal trackers such as SCOTUSblog [9].