WASHINGTON – Two U.S. Senators have filed a joint resolution proposing a Constitutional amendment to establish term limits for U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
The resolution, filed December 9 by Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vermont), would institute nonrenewable, 18-year terms for new justices with a new term starting every two years. The senators say the amendment is meant to restore confidence in the court, eliminate political gamesmanship from the nomination process and reinforce judicial independence.
“I’m proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Welch that would establish 18-year term limits for Justices of the United States Supreme Court,” Manchin said. “The current lifetime appointment structure is broken and fuels polarizing confirmation battles and political posturing that has eroded public confidence in the highest court in our land.
“Our amendment maintains that there shall never be more than nine justices and would gradually create regular vacancies on the court, allowing the president to appoint a new justice every two years with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our legislation to help restore faith in our judicial system.”
Welch agreed.
“Taking action to restore public trust in our nation's most powerful Court is as urgent as it is necessary,” he said. “Setting term limits for Supreme Court Justices will cut down on political gamesmanship, and is commonsense reform supported by a majority of Americans.
“I’m proud to lead this effort with Senator Manchin that will restore Americans’ faith in our judicial system.”
The proposed amendment would not adjust the tenure of sitting justices, but rather institute a transition period to maintain regular vacancies as current justices retire. During that period, 18-year terms will begin every two years, regardless of when a current justice leaves the bench.
Once a current justice retires, the newly appointed justice will serve out the remainder of the next open 18-year term. The amendment would not change the overall number of justices on the court.
Public trust in the U.S. Supreme Court has eroded in recent years. Following the 2024 Supreme Court term, one survey found that only 16 percent of Americans had “a great deal of confidence” in the court. And, the majority of citizens supports the establishment of term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Also, every state except Rhode Island has some sort of term restrictions for those serving on their highest court.
The Supreme Court Term Limits Constitutional Amendment is supported by former federal judges and scholars across the legal spectrum.
“Looking at the states of our country as the ‘laboratories’ for our political system, we find that only one has life tenure without restriction — no term limits, no mandatory retirement age,” said Diane P. Wood, retired U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School; Director, American Law Institute. “The same is true of apex courts around the world. It is time for the United States to make this important change to the federal judiciary.
“The proposed Joint Resolution does so in a manner consistent with our constitutional design, and for all these reasons and many more, I support it.”
A University of Pennsylvania professor agreed.
“This important proposal offers a non-partisan fix to an appointment process that our political parties have broken in ways the framers could not anticipate,” said said Kermit Roosevelt, David Berger Professor, Administration of Justice, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. “It’s our best chance to end the confirmation wars and the politicization of the judiciary.”
A University of Minnesota professor said reform of the Supreme Court is “absolutely essential.”
“The court needs an enforceable ethics code,” said Professor Richard Painter, University of Minnesota, Former Chief White House Ethics Lawyer, George W. Bush Administration. “Term limits for justices would also help restore public confidence in the court.”