H.J.Res.28 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.J.Res.28 proposes a constitutional amendment to fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. This resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 22, 2025, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The primary aim is to prevent future attempts to alter the size of the Supreme Court for political advantage, often referred to as 'court packing'.
The resolution requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to pass, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years.
Currently, the Constitution does not specify the number of justices, leaving it to Congress to determine.
Expected Effects
If ratified, this amendment would constitutionally mandate that the Supreme Court consist of nine justices. This would prevent future legislative actions aimed at increasing or decreasing the number of justices for political purposes. It would solidify the current structure of the court, potentially reducing uncertainty about its composition.
This could limit the flexibility of future Congresses to respond to unforeseen circumstances affecting the judiciary.
It could also lead to increased political battles over Supreme Court nominations, as each appointment would have a greater impact on the court's ideological balance.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Stability: Ensures a consistent structure for the Supreme Court, reducing uncertainty.
- Reduced Politicization: Prevents potential manipulation of the court's size for political gain.
- Preservation of Precedent: Maintains the established judicial framework, supporting the principle of stare decisis.
- Public Confidence: May enhance public trust by ensuring the court's composition is not subject to political whims.
- Reinforces Separation of Powers: By setting a fixed number, it clarifies the roles of the legislative and judicial branches.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Flexibility: Limits Congress's ability to adapt the court's size to future needs or crises.
- Potential for Gridlock: Could intensify political battles over judicial nominations, leading to gridlock.
- Entrenchment of Ideology: May solidify a particular ideological balance on the court for extended periods.
- Difficulty of Amendment: Constitutional amendments are difficult to achieve, making it hard to correct any unforeseen negative consequences.
- Undemocratic rigidity: Prevents future generations from adapting the court to the needs of their time.
Constitutional Alignment
The proposed amendment itself aligns with the constitutional amendment process outlined in Article V. Article V details the process for amending the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
However, the Constitution is silent on the specific number of Supreme Court justices. This silence has historically allowed Congress to adjust the court's size. By fixing the number, the amendment would limit Congress's power in this area, which some may argue goes against the original intent of providing flexibility to the legislative branch.
While the amendment process is constitutional, the substance of the amendment could be viewed as either reinforcing or restricting the balance of power envisioned by the Constitution, depending on one's interpretation.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).