The U.S. House of Representatives on September 2 rejected a Republican-backed constitutional amendment that sought to permanently limit the Supreme Court to nine justices, with the measure falling short of the required two-thirds majority.
The vote, which concluded 212–206, saw all but one Democrat oppose the proposal, while every Republican voted in favor. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would have added a single sentence to the Constitution: "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices." The resolution required support from two-thirds of the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 38 of 50 state legislatures.
House Leadership Positions
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) framed the vote as a preemptive measure against potential Democratic efforts to expand the court. "Once you go down the road of packing the Supreme Court, it turns into a political palooza," Johnson stated ahead of the vote. Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), countered that the amendment was an attempt to entrench a 6–3 conservative-leaning majority and strip Congress of its constitutional authority to adjust the court’s size.
Democratic Push for Expansion
The proposal emerged amid growing calls within the Democratic Party to expand the Supreme Court. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) publicly endorsed increasing the number of justices to 13, arguing that "thirteen is a pretty good number" and calling his past support for Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation a "mistake." Other Democrats, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have criticized the current court as "profoundly partisan and lopsided."
Historical Context of Court Size
The U.S. Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices; Congress has adjusted the court’s size seven times in U.S. history. The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the current nine-justice structure, which has remained unchanged for 155 years. Supporters of the amendment, including Biggs, argued that fixing the number at nine would prevent future politicization of the court’s composition. Opponents, such as House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), countered that the amendment would "strip Congress of yet another constitutional authority" and fail to address broader judicial or economic concerns.
Election-Year Implications
Republicans framed the vote as a messaging tool ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, highlighting Democratic proposals to expand the court as a campaign issue. Democrats, meanwhile, accused Republicans of attempting to preemptively block potential reforms. The amendment’s failure underscores the deep partisan divide over the Supreme Court’s structure, with both sides using the issue to mobilize their bases.
What’s Next
For the amendment to advance, it would need two-thirds support in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 38 states. Given the current political climate, constitutional scholars suggest such a path remains highly unlikely in the near term. The debate, however, is expected to persist as a focal point in judicial and electoral discussions.