Fact Check: Examining the Case for Supreme Court Term Limits

The debate over Supreme Court reform has intensified as Representative Johnny Olszewski, Democrat of Maryland, introduced a constitutional amendment that would fundamentally alter how justices serve on the nation’s highest court.

Olszewski’s proposal, dubbed the Reform of Bench Eligibility Act (ROBE Act), would replace lifetime appointments with 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices. The amendment would apply to current justices and include a transition process to implement the new system.

The legislation comes in the wake of a controversial Supreme Court voting-rights ruling that Olszewski’s office characterized as “effectively gutting the Voting Rights Act.” In his statement, the Maryland congressman emphasized that public faith in the Court relies on its perception as a fair and independent institution.

“Recent rulings, ethics controversies, and increasingly political behavior by some justices have tested the public’s trust in the Supreme Court,” Olszewski said. The reform effort aims to restore confidence in the judicial body through more regular turnover.

The Brennan Center for Justice has thrown its support behind term limits, releasing a new analysis that describes the Supreme Court as facing a crisis of public confidence. The center argues that the Court has become too powerful with insufficient accountability mechanisms, noting that its authority depends heavily on public trust since it lacks direct enforcement power.

At the core of the Brennan Center’s recommendation is an 18-year active service term. After completing this period, justices would transition to senior status, remaining federal judges but taking on more limited roles such as hearing cases in lower courts or filling in during recusals or unexpected vacancies.

The reform push comes amid evidence that justices are serving substantially longer terms than in previous eras. According to the Brennan Center, Supreme Court justices served an average of about 15 years for nearly two centuries. Since 1993, however, that average has nearly doubled to approximately 28 years.

Advocates for term limits argue that these extended tenures allow individual justices to shape American jurisprudence for generations on critical issues including voting rights, abortion access, gun regulations, campaign finance, and executive power. They suggest that regularizing appointments—one every two years—could reduce the contentious nature of confirmation battles and make the process more predictable.

Public opinion appears to favor such reforms. The Brennan Center cites a 2024 Fox News poll indicating that 78% of Americans support limiting Supreme Court justices to 18-year terms. That same poll revealed the Court’s approval rating had fallen to a historic low.

Despite public support, the proposal faces significant constitutional and political challenges. Under Article III of the Constitution, Supreme Court justices currently hold their positions during “good behavior,” effectively creating lifetime appointments. While the Brennan Center suggests Congress could potentially implement 18-year active-service terms through statute if justices remain in senior status afterward, Olszewski’s approach as a constitutional amendment would require approval from two-thirds of both congressional chambers and ratification by three-fourths of states—a high threshold for any amendment.

Critics of term limits maintain that lifetime tenure serves a crucial purpose: protecting judicial independence by insulating justices from political pressure, shifting public sentiment, and potential retaliation from other branches of government. Some also note that reform efforts often gain momentum when one political party is dissatisfied with the Court’s current ideological composition.

Beyond term limits, the Brennan Center advocates for additional reforms, including a binding ethics code, restrictions on the Court’s emergency “shadow docket,” streamlining congressional responses to significant Court rulings, revising the confirmation process, and allowing cameras in the courtroom.

These proposed changes reflect broader concerns about rebuilding trust in the Court following polarizing decisions, ethics controversies involving certain justices, and increasingly partisan confirmation hearings. The fundamental question underlying this debate is whether Congress can enhance the Supreme Court’s accountability and transparency without compromising the judicial independence that the founders intended to protect.