House Rejects Constitutional Amendment to Fix Supreme Court at Nine Justices (212-206) and Passes Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025 (218-201)
The House convened for a busy legislative day, beginning with morning-hour debate and one-minute speeches covering a wide array of local recognitions and national policy concerns. The chamber then proceeded to consider two significant measures under suspension of the rules: H.J. Res. 1, proposing a constitutional amendment to fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine, which failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority; and H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025, which passed. Special Order speeches later in the day focused on the administration's policies regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
The failure of H.J. Res. 1 to advance a constitutional amendment regarding the Supreme Court's composition leaves the power to determine the number of justices with Congress, as established by the Founders. The passage of H.R. 1501 expands and codifies expedited permitting for mining and mineral processing projects, aiming to bolster domestic supply chains and reduce foreign reliance, while also raising concerns about environmental and Tribal impacts. The extensive debate surrounding these measures, alongside the Special Order discussions on DEI and USAID, highlights deep partisan divisions over constitutional powers, economic policy, and social justice, with significant implications for judicial independence, environmental regulation, and U.S. foreign policy.
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
H.J. Res. 1Question before the chamber
Motion to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution.
The case for
Proponents argued that fixing the Supreme Court at nine justices permanently is crucial for upholding its legitimacy, protecting checks and balances, and ensuring judicial independence. They asserted that changing the Court's size for ideological purposes, or 'Court packing,' undermines its role as an independent check on government power and would lead to a political 'arms race.' They cited historical examples, including the rejection of Franklin Roosevelt's Court-packing plan, as evidence that such attempts are dangerous and abandon constitutional principles. They emphasized that the current proposal uses the constitutional amendment process, allowing the American people to decide, rather than Congress unilaterally changing the Court's composition.
The case against
Opponents argued that the resolution is a partisan attempt to surrender Congress's constitutional power to define the composition of the Supreme Court, a power exercised seven times throughout history. They contended that the proposal seeks to freeze into place a 'profoundly partisan and lopsided 6-3 Roberts Court' that was engineered through political maneuvers, such as Senator McConnell's actions regarding Justice Scalia's and Justice Ginsburg's vacancies. They criticized the lack of a substantive argument for why 'nine' should be the permanent number and suggested the move was a distraction from the administration's failures and an attempt to prevent future reforms like term limits or ethics rules. They also highlighted the Court's recent decisions, which they characterized as undermining democracy and individual rights.
Disposition
Motion to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution · recorded vote
failed (did not achieve two-thirds majority)
212-206
Who is affected
- The judiciary: The resolution aimed to permanently define the size of the Supreme Court, impacting its structure and perceived independence.
- Congress: The resolution sought to remove Congress's existing constitutional power to determine the number of Supreme Court justices.
- American people: The debate touched on the impartiality of the judiciary and the protection of constitutional rights, which are fundamental to all citizens.
Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025
H.R. 1501Question before the chamber
Passage of the bill.
The case for
Proponents argued that H.R. 1501 is essential for strengthening America's national security, unlocking economic investment, and supporting jobs by streamlining the permitting process for domestic mining and mineral processing projects. They highlighted the current 19-year average permitting time for new mines and the nation's reliance on foreign adversaries, particularly China, for critical minerals. They asserted that the bill provides regulatory certainty, encourages domestic production under high environmental standards, and ensures that all mining projects, not just critical minerals, can benefit from the efficient, transparent FAST-41 process, which does not waive environmental laws or Tribal consultation.
The case against
Opponents argued that the bill is misguided and could exacerbate existing problems. They contended that expanding FAST-41 eligibility to all mining projects, including non-critical minerals like sand and gravel, would dilute the Permitting Council's limited resources, diverting attention from truly critical minerals essential for national security. Concerns were raised about the lack of robust Tribal consultation requirements and the potential for foreign-owned companies to benefit from expedited permitting without clear national interest. Opponents also alleged that the administration has a pattern of prioritizing mining projects with ties to the President's family or donors, suggesting the bill could facilitate corruption and self-dealing.
Disposition
Passage of the bill · recorded vote
passed
218-201
Who is affected
- Mining industry and American workers: The bill aims to provide regulatory certainty and expedite project development, potentially leading to more domestic mining operations and job creation.
- Communities near mining projects: Concerns were raised about potential impacts on drinking water, health, and environmental sustainability due to expedited permitting processes.
- Tribal nations: The bill's critics argued that it lacks sufficient provisions for meaningful Tribal consultation on projects affecting their lands and resources.
- Taxpayers: The bill's opponents raised concerns about the use of taxpayer dollars to benefit projects with alleged ties to administration officials or donors.
Constitutional Amendment to Fix Supreme Court at Nine Justices Fails
highH.J. Res. 1, proposing a constitutional amendment to permanently set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine, failed to pass under suspension of the rules. The vote was 212 yeas to 206 nays, falling short of the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment. Proponents argued it would protect judicial independence, while opponents contended it was a partisan attempt to freeze a specific Court composition and an abdication of congressional power.
Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025 Passes
highH.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025, passed by a recorded vote of 218 yeas to 201 nays. The bill codifies mining and mineral processing as covered sectors under the FAST Act (FAST-41) and prohibits future administrations from narrowing FAST-41 eligibility for mining projects. Proponents emphasized national security and reducing reliance on foreign adversaries, while opponents raised concerns about environmental impacts, Tribal consultation, and potential for corruption.
New Member Sworn In
mediumThe Honorable Aisha Wahab of California was permitted to take the oath of office and was sworn in as a Member of the 119th Congress, representing California's 14th Congressional District. She made history as the first Afghan American elected to Congress.
Special Order Debate on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
mediumA Special Order hour was dedicated to discussing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles. Members expressed concern over the administration's actions to dismantle DEI programs and initiatives across Federal agencies, arguing that such actions undermine civil rights, equal opportunity, and the progress made towards a more inclusive society.
Special Order Debate on USAID and Foreign Assistance Cuts
mediumAnother Special Order hour addressed the administration's decision to disband the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and dramatically cut U.S. international assistance. Members highlighted the destructive consequences of these cuts, citing increased deaths, humanitarian crises, and damage to U.S. national security and international reputation.