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 change how long justices serve on the nation’s highest court.

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

The timing of the proposal is significant, coming in the aftermath of a controversial Supreme Court ruling on voting rights that critics, including Olszewski’s office, claim effectively undermined the Voting Rights Act. The Maryland representative argued that public confidence in the court hinges on its perceived legitimacy as an independent and fair institution.

“Recent rulings, ethics controversies, and increasingly political behavior by some justices have tested the public’s trust in the Supreme Court,” Olszewski said in a statement accompanying the proposal.

The push for term limits has gained support from prominent legal organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice. In a new analysis, the Center describes the Supreme Court as facing a crisis of public confidence while wielding significant power with limited accountability. The group emphasizes that the Court’s authority rests heavily on public trust since it lacks direct enforcement mechanisms.

At the core of the Brennan Center’s proposal is the same 18-year active service term for justices that Olszewski’s amendment outlines. After completing this term, justices would transition to senior status, allowing them to remain federal judges but in more limited capacities, such as hearing cases in lower courts or filling in during recusals or unexpected vacancies.

The Brennan Center highlights the historical shift in justices’ tenure as a key driver for reform. For nearly two centuries, Supreme Court justices served an average of about 15 years. However, since 1993, that average has nearly doubled to approximately 28 years, giving individual justices unprecedented influence over American law across generations on critical issues ranging from voting rights and abortion to gun laws and presidential power.

Supporters of term limits argue that establishing regular appointments—one every two years—could reduce the intense partisan battles that have come to define the confirmation process and make Supreme Court nominations more predictable and less politically charged.

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

Despite public support, the reform faces substantial legal and political obstacles. The current system of lifetime appointments is enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. While the Brennan Center suggests Congress could potentially enact 18-year active service terms through statute if justices maintain senior status afterward, Olszewski’s approach as a constitutional amendment acknowledges the high bar for change—requiring two-thirds approval from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states.

Critics of term limits contend that lifetime tenure serves a crucial purpose in protecting judicial independence. They argue it shields justices from political pressure, public opinion fluctuations, and potential retaliation from other branches of government. Some also caution that reform efforts often gain momentum when a particular political faction is dissatisfied with the Court’s 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,” an expedited process for congressional responses to major Court decisions, changes to the confirmation process, and greater transparency through cameras in the courtroom.

The broader debate reflects a fundamental tension in American democracy: how to enhance Supreme Court accountability and transparency while preserving the judicial independence that the founders intended to protect.