Fact Check: The Debate Over Supreme Court Term Limits

Debate Reignites Over Supreme Court Term Limits with New Constitutional Amendment

The long-running debate over Supreme Court reform has surged back into the national spotlight as Representative Johnny Olszewski, D-Md., introduced a constitutional amendment that would fundamentally change how long justices serve on the nation’s highest court.

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

“Public faith in the Supreme Court depends on its legitimacy as a fair and independent institution,” Olszewski said in a statement. His office cited recent controversial rulings, including a decision his team described as “effectively gutting the Voting Rights Act,” as evidence that the Court’s current structure needs reform.

The push comes amid historically low public approval ratings for the Court. A Fox News poll cited by reform advocates found the Court’s approval rating had fallen to a record low, with 78% of Americans expressing support for limiting justices to 18-year terms.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a prominent legal policy institute, has thrown its weight behind the term limits proposal, releasing a detailed analysis arguing that the Supreme Court faces a crisis of public confidence and has accumulated too much power with insufficient accountability mechanisms.

“The Court’s authority depends heavily on public trust because it does not have direct enforcement power,” the Brennan Center noted in its report, highlighting the unique vulnerability of the judicial branch when public confidence erodes.

Under the Brennan Center’s version of the proposal, after serving their 18-year active terms, justices would transition to senior status. This designation would allow them to remain federal judges but in a more limited capacity, such as hearing cases in lower courts or stepping in during recusals or unexpected vacancies.

Advocates point to a significant shift in how long justices now serve compared to historical norms. 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, allowing individual justices to shape American jurisprudence across multiple generations on fundamental issues including voting rights, reproductive rights, gun regulations, campaign finance, and executive power.

Supporters argue that implementing regular, predictable appointments—one every two years—could reduce the intense political battles that have come to characterize the confirmation process and make the system more stable and predictable.

The path to implementation, however, faces significant challenges. Supreme Court justices currently hold lifetime appointments under Article III of the Constitution. While the Brennan Center suggests Congress could potentially enact 18-year active-service terms through statute if justices remain in senior status afterward, Olszewski’s approach through a constitutional amendment would require approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of states—a notoriously difficult process.

Critics of term limits argue that lifetime tenure serves a critical purpose: protecting judicial independence by insulating justices from political pressure, shifting public opinion, and potential retaliation from the legislative or executive branches. Some also note that reform efforts often gain momentum when one political party becomes dissatisfied with the Court’s current ideological composition.

The Brennan Center has outlined five additional reforms beyond term limits: implementing a binding ethics code, placing limits on the Court’s emergency “shadow docket,” creating a more efficient process for Congress to respond to significant Court rulings, reforming the confirmation process, and allowing cameras in the courtroom.

The broader debate ultimately centers on finding an appropriate balance: how to make the Supreme Court more accountable and transparent without undermining the judicial independence the Founders sought to protect through lifetime appointments.

As political polarization continues to define American politics, the question of how to structure the nation’s highest court has evolved from an academic discussion into a central political issue with far-reaching implications for American democracy.