Proposal for Supreme Court Term Limits Faces Constitutional Hurdles

A new bill, titled the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025, has been introduced in the House of Representatives, co-sponsored by California Democrat Mike Levin. This legislation proposes establishing 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, creating a regular appointment schedule whereby one justice would be nominated every two years following presidential elections. The bill aims to address perceived imbalances in the Court and enhance accountability.

Newsweek

The proposal encounters significant constitutional obstacles, primarily due to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” This clause is interpreted by many legal scholars as prohibiting term limits without a constitutional amendment. Consequently, it is widely believed that Congress cannot impose term limits through statutory means alone.

Newsweek

Despite the introduction of the bill, its chances of passage in the current Congress are minimal. The Republican Party, which holds a 6–3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, has shown little interest in term limits or any structural reforms. The bill is viewed more as a marker of Democratic frustration with the Court rather than a viable legislative initiative. Democratic calls for reform have intensified following contentious confirmation battles, including the blocking of President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland in 2016 and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett under controversial circumstances.

Newsweek

While the proposal lacks bipartisan backing in Congress, it reflects a growing public interest in Supreme Court reform. Many Americans support term limits as a means to modernize the Court and prevent the concentration of power among justices serving lifetime appointments. Levin emphasized that nearly every state employs some form of term limits or reappointment for their highest courts, suggesting that similar practices could strengthen the federal judiciary without politicizing it.

Newsweek

Currently, the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee but has not yet received a hearing or a committee vote. If it were to advance, it would still require approval from the Senate and the president, and could face legal challenges regarding its constitutionality. The future of H.R. 1074 remains uncertain in a divided Congress, where any changes to the Supreme Court are met with intense scrutiny.

Newsweek

Critics of the proposal argue that imposing term limits could undermine the independence of the judiciary. Some legal experts contend that the current system of lifetime appointments is essential for maintaining judicial impartiality. Additionally, Republican leaders have expressed their commitment to appointing justices who interpret the law as written, indicating a reluctance to support reforms perceived as politically motivated.

Newsweek

• “I’m proud to cosponsor a bill to set 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.” — Mike Levin, U.S. Representative

Newsweek

• “an 18-year term, with one new Justice appointed every two years, will bring balance and predictability,” — Mike Levin, U.S. Representative

Newsweek

The proposal for term limits on Supreme Court justices highlights a growing divide over the Court's future, reflecting deepening discontent among Democrats regarding its current ideological composition and legitimacy.

Newsweek