2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REPORTED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (Jan 3, 2025)

Technical corrections and procedural updates only. v2 adds information about additional sponsors, committee reporting, and referral to the House Calendar. The substantive text of the proposed constitutional amendment remains unchanged from v1.

H.J.Res. 1119th CongressIntroduced Jan 3, 2025

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.

Failed HouseLawMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Committees: Judiciary Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 2, 2026

Bottom line

This resolution seeks to constitutionally enshrine the current nine-justice composition of the Supreme Court, precluding future attempts to expand or contract its size through ordinary legislation.

What it actually does

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to explicitly set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, consisting of one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. If ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years, this amendment would prevent future legislative changes to the Court's size, thereby constitutionally fixing its composition.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this amendment would safeguard the independence and stability of the Supreme Court by preventing politically motivated attempts to "pack" or "unpack" the Court. They contend it ensures judicial impartiality and maintains public trust in the judiciary by removing the Court's size from partisan legislative battles.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that this amendment is unnecessary, as the number of justices has historically been set by Congress and has varied throughout history. They may also contend that it is a politically motivated response to recent calls for court expansion, rather much as a neutral effort to protect the judiciary, and could limit future flexibility needed to address judicial workload or representation.

The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for public review.

Article-- (page 1, lines 15-17)

Establishing Nine Supreme Court Justices

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision proposes a new article to the U.S. Constitution that would mandate the Supreme Court consist of exactly nine justices: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. This would constitutionally fix the size of the Court, removing Congress's power to alter it through statute. The amendment would become valid upon ratification by three-fourths of the several States within seven years.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupThe U.S. Supreme CourtImpactFixed composition, preventing future legislative changes to its size.MechanismConstitutional amendmentScalePermanent

GroupU.S. CongressImpactLoss of statutory power to alter the Supreme Court's size.MechanismConstitutional amendmentScalePermanent

GroupFuture Presidents and political partiesImpactReduced ability to influence the judiciary through court expansion or contraction.MechanismConstitutional amendmentScalePermanent

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that fixing the Court's size in the Constitution would insulate the judiciary from political manipulation, ensuring its independence and preventing partisan attempts to "pack" the court. They believe this stability is crucial for maintaining public trust and the rule of law.

Critics contend

Critics might contend that this amendment is a reactive measure to recent political debates rather than a principled reform, and that it removes a legitimate legislative check on the judiciary. They could argue that flexibility in court size might be necessary in the future to address workload or ensure representativeness.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension is between judicial independence and legislative flexibility. While fixing the Court's size could protect it from political attacks, it also removes a tool Congress has historically used to adapt the judiciary, potentially limiting future responses to unforeseen challenges or evolving societal needs.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.