Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 4, 2026
Bottom line
The resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to impose an 18-year term limit on Supreme Court justices, with immediate effect for current long-serving justices.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit the tenure of Supreme Court justices to 18 years. Crucially, it mandates that any justice serving 18 years or more at the time of the amendment's ratification would have their term immediately terminated. If such a justice is the Chief Justice, the position would be filled according to law.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that term limits would depoliticize the Supreme Court by ensuring regular turnover, reducing the high-stakes nature of individual appointments, and aligning judicial service with modern life expectancies. They contend it would make the Court's composition more reflective of contemporary society over time and ensure a more predictable appointment schedule for presidents.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this proposal would undermine judicial independence by making justices more susceptible to political pressures, as they would be aware of their impending departure. They also argue it could lead to a more politicized court as presidents would have guaranteed appointment slots, potentially leading to more partisan judicial selections and eroding the stability of constitutional interpretation.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its core proposal.
Article--
Eighteen-Year Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
This provision establishes that a Supreme Court justice's tenure cannot exceed 18 years. It also includes a retroactive clause: if a justice is already serving 18 years or more when the amendment is ratified, their term is immediately terminated. If that justice is the Chief Justice, the vacancy would be filled as prescribed by law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision would depoliticize the Supreme Court by ensuring regular turnover, reducing the high-stakes nature of individual appointments, and aligning judicial service with modern life expectancies. It would also ensure the Court's composition more closely reflects contemporary society over time, fostering greater democratic accountability.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision would undermine judicial independence by making justices more susceptible to political pressures, as they would be aware of their impending departure. They also argue it could lead to a more politicized court as presidents would have guaranteed appointment slots, potentially leading to more partisan judicial selections and eroding the stability of constitutional interpretation.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for a more democratically accountable judiciary with concerns about maintaining judicial independence and stability. It seeks to address criticisms of lifetime appointments leading to an unrepresentative or overly powerful judiciary, while risking increased politicization of the court and potential challenges to its legitimacy.