Reforming the Supreme Court: Introducing Term Limits

In the 78th Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of government, lacking both control over finances and military power. Initially, the Supreme Court dealt with few cases. Its justices worked part-time and shared office space in the U.S. Capitol. Some nominees even declined the role due to its lack of prestige.

Today, the scenario has dramatically changed. Supreme Court justices now earn over $300,000 annually, possess personal chambers, receive security assistance, and have office staff. With lifetime appointments, some current justices might serve through as many as nine presidential terms. They now influence nearly every facet of American life, issuing around 80 rulings annually on critical national issues.

Americans have witnessed the court overturn longstanding legal precedents on crucial topics like reproductive rights, affirmative action, and voting rights, often aligning with ideological biases.

“The rise in ethically questionable conduct among justices has eroded public confidence,” highlights recent observations.

Justice Clarence Thomas received undisclosed luxury trips, while Justice Samuel Alito accepted gifts from a hedge fund billionaire with cases before the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch promoted a book for a $250,000 advance, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received over $2 million for her book. All six conservative justices attended a White House event hosted by an administration frequently involved in court cases.

These actions contributed to a crisis in confidence and legitimacy. Recent surveys show trust in the court has plummeted, with only 42% of Americans expressing approval. Calls for reform are growing. A notable 75% of Americans support term limits for Supreme Court justices. Polls indicate strong bipartisan agreement—Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike recognize the necessity for change.

This sentiment has spurred the proposal of the ROBE (Reform of Bench Eligibility) Act, a constitutional amendment advocating 18-year term limits. This change would allow more predictable turnover, lower appointment stakes, and discourage political strategizing, thus aligning more closely with democratic values.

While some seek legislative solutions, statutory changes risk being overturned. A constitutional amendment, requiring broad consensus, offers a permanent solution. It reflects the extensive public support and bipartisan approval for genuine reform.

Implementing an 18-year term limit won’t immediately resolve all issues. However, it would enhance public trust in a court perceived as drifting from its foundational democratic principles. This reform is vital, and pursuing it via a constitutional amendment ensures durability and clarity.

Johnny Olszewski, a Democratic representative for Maryland’s 2nd Congressional District, advocates for this reform as essential for restoring faith in the judiciary. The views expressed here are his own.