Has the filibuster ever been abolished or modified by Senate precedent and when?

1. The Early Breakthrough: Cloture Introduced in 1917 — How the Senate First Reined in Endless Debate

The filibuster’s modern trajectory began when the Senate adopted Rule 22 in 1917, creating the first cloture mechanism to cut off debate by a supermajority vote. This move responded to wartime urgency and established the core tension that persists: balancing extended debate against majority governance. Rule 22 originally required a two‑thirds majority to invoke cloture, reflecting an era when the Senate preferred supermajority safeguards; that threshold remained the formal rule until substantive precedent and internal practice changed the effective vote counts later in the century ^{[4] [1]}. The 1917 cloture adoption is therefore the foundational modification: it did not abolish the filibuster but institutionalized a means to end it, embedding the filibuster within a framework the chamber could alter incrementally.

2. The 1975 Turning Point: From Two‑Thirds to 60 Votes — A Compromise That Changed the Chamber

In 1975 senators engineered a precedent that reduced the cloture threshold from a two‑thirds requirement to three‑fifths of senators present and voting, effectively codified as 60 votes in a 100‑member Senate. That change came after prolonged maneuvering and the use of precedent to resolve a stalemate, producing a compromise framed as necessary for Senate functionality. The 1975 shift did not eliminate the filibuster; instead, it made overcoming a filibuster somewhat easier while preserving a supermajority barrier, a compromise widely regarded as the linchpin of modern filibuster practice and a central reason the 60‑vote norm endures in legislative battles ^{[5] [6]}.

3. The Nuclear Option Era: 2013 and 2017 Carved Out Nominations From Filibuster Protection

The Senate’s most dramatic precedent changes in the 21st century came via the so‑called “nuclear option,” when a simple‑majority vote was used to overturn long‑standing practice on filibusters for nominations. In 2013 Democrats set a new precedent eliminating filibusters for most executive‑branch and federal judicial nominees; in 2017 Republicans extended that to Supreme Court nominees. These rulings changed the functional landscape by preserving the legislative filibuster while largely removing it for confirmations, demonstrating that the chamber can use majority votes to reinterpret precedent and narrow filibuster application without formally amending Rule 22 ^{[2] [7] [3]}.

4. How Precedent Works: Why the Filibuster Can Be Modified Without Rule 22 Being Amended

The Senate operates as much by precedent and rulings of the presiding officer as by textually entrenched rules; a series of parliamentary rulings and majority votes can create or reverse norms. Forty‑plus years of two‑track scheduling, ad hoc exceptions, and targeted precedents have produced a mosaic of carve‑outs—over a hundred exceptions between 1969 and 2014 alone—so that changes often arrive piecemeal rather than through formal rule amendment requiring two‑thirds (or a constitutional-level change) ^{[8] [9]}. This incrementalism explains why the filibuster endures in law yet is continually reshaped in practice, with majorities choosing which aspects to preserve or pare back depending on partisan incentives.

5. The Big Picture: Political Stakes, Multiple Perspectives, and What’s Still Possible

Scholars and practitioners agree that the filibuster’s future depends on political will: majorities can either preserve the 60‑vote legislative hurdle, further narrow exceptions as they did for nominations, or attempt a full repeal through a formal rule change—difficult but not impossible. Advocates for abolition stress majoritarian democracy and legislative efficiency, while defenders highlight minority protection and deliberation; both positions have motivated precedent shifts at different times. The historical record shows the filibuster has been modified repeatedly but not abolished, and every modification—1917, 1975, 2013, 2017—used Senate votes and procedural precedent to recalibrate power rather than eliminate the institution outright ^{[3] [9] [8]}.