A joint resolution 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.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 6, 2025
Bottom line
This joint resolution seeks to enshrine the current nine-justice composition of the Supreme Court into the U.S. Constitution, preventing future legislative changes to its size.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to explicitly mandate that the Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices. If ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years, this amendment would permanently fix the size of the Supreme Court, removing Congress's current statutory authority to alter its composition.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this amendment would depoliticize the Supreme Court by removing the ability of Congress to alter its size for political gain, ensuring judicial independence and stability. They contend it would protect the Court from 'court-packing' attempts, preserving its integrity and public trust by ensuring its decisions are perceived as based on law rather than political expediency.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that fixing the Court's size in the Constitution is unnecessary and could limit future Congresses' flexibility to address judicial workload or balance issues. Some may view it as a partisan effort to prevent expansion, while others might argue that the current system, where Congress determines the number of justices, has historically worked and provides necessary adaptability.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, making it easily accessible for any reader to understand its direct proposal.
Article--
Constitutional Amendment to Fix Supreme Court at Nine Justices
This provision proposes a new article to the U.S. Constitution that explicitly states, 'The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.' If ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years, this amendment would permanently establish the size of the Supreme Court, removing Congress's current authority to change it by statute.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that fixing the number of justices at nine would safeguard the Supreme Court's independence from political manipulation, preventing any single party from unilaterally expanding or contracting the Court to achieve desired ideological outcomes. They believe this ensures the Court remains focused on legal interpretation rather than political expediency.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this amendment is a partisan response to recent calls for court expansion and would unduly restrict the legislative branch's historical authority to adapt the judiciary to changing national needs. They may argue that the current system provides necessary flexibility and that a constitutional amendment is an overreach.
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 shape the judiciary, potentially limiting responses to future unforeseen challenges or workload demands.