Nine-justice Supreme Court amendment

Full Title:
A joint resolution 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.

Summary#

This joint resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to have nine justices. The change would lock the Court’s size into the Constitution rather than leaving it to Congress to set by law. The amendment must be approved by state legislatures in three‑quarters of the states within seven years to become part of the Constitution.

  • Main change: The Constitution would say the Supreme Court shall be composed of nine justices.
  • Who decides ratification: State legislatures must ratify the amendment (three‑quarters of states) within seven years.
  • Current practice (background): Under current law, Congress sets the number of justices by statute; Congress has set the number at nine since 1869.
  • What is unclear: The amendment does not address temporary vacancies, the appointment or removal process, the size of lower federal courts, or other court procedures.

What it means for you#

  • Congress: Congress would no longer be able to change the number of Supreme Court justices by passing a law.
  • Supreme Court and federal judiciary: If the amendment is ratified, the Supreme Court’s size would be fixed at nine justices. Other court rules and judicial appointments would continue under existing law.
  • President: The President would still nominate justices and the Senate would still vote to confirm them. The amendment does not change that appointment process.
  • State legislatures: State legislatures are the bodies that would vote on ratifying this amendment. Their votes determine whether it becomes part of the Constitution.
  • Voters and the public: Ordinary court access, case handling, and rights would not change directly. The main public effect is to prevent future changes to the Court’s size unless another constitutional amendment is passed.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and the accompanying material do not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
  • Possible administrative or legal costs from conducting a multi‑state ratification process or future litigation are not estimated in the available material.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to make the size of the Supreme Court stable and predictable.
  • Supporters may argue this would prevent Congress from changing the Court’s size for political reasons (sometimes called "court‑packing") by passing a law.
  • The amendment could be seen as clarifying a constitutional gap: the Constitution does not say how many justices the Court must have.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the amendment would lock in the current number and remove Congress’s flexibility to respond to future needs or reforms.
  • The amendment does not address other court reforms people sometimes propose, such as term limits or changes to lower courts.
  • It is unclear how the rule would interact with emergency or temporary measures, or whether disputes about the amendment’s scope could lead to court cases.
  • The amendment would require a difficult ratification process (approval by three‑quarters of state legislatures), so opponents may argue it is an inflexible solution to a political issue.