A Republican-led committee in the U.S. House of Representatives has advanced a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at permanently fixing the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices, reviving a long-running political battle over the future shape of the nation’s highest court.
The House Judiciary Committee approved the measure in a 15-8 party-line vote, sending forward a proposal that supporters say would prevent future attempts to expand the court for political gain. While the amendment faces daunting procedural hurdles and is unlikely to become law, Republicans argue it is necessary to safeguard the court’s independence.
Arizona Republican Andy Biggs, who introduced the proposal, contended that allowing Congress to alter the court’s membership whenever it disagrees with judicial decisions would undermine the institution’s role as a check on government power. He framed the amendment as a response to years of Democratic-backed efforts to increase the number of justices after conservatives secured a commanding majority on the bench during Donald Trump’s first presidency.
The Supreme Court’s current 6-3 conservative composition has delivered a series of landmark rulings that reshaped American law and politics, including decisions on abortion rights, gun regulations, federal agency authority and presidential powers. Those rulings have intensified calls from some Democrats to consider expanding the court.
Despite advancing out of committee, the amendment’s prospects remain exceedingly slim. Constitutional amendments require approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate before being sent to the states. Ratification would then require support from three-fourths of the states, a threshold that has historically proven difficult to achieve.
Democrats on the committee sharply criticized the proposal, arguing that it is designed to preserve the current ideological balance of the court rather than protect judicial independence. Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin described the effort as an attempt to entrench a partisan advantage, while Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett accused Republicans of seeking to cement political power through constitutional means.
Some Democrats continue to support legislation that would expand the court from nine to 13 justices, an idea first introduced several years ago. Advocates of expansion argue Congress should retain the authority to adjust the court’s size, particularly when concerns arise about its composition or direction.
The number of Supreme Court justices has not always been fixed. Throughout American history, Congress has altered the court’s size multiple times, reducing it to as few as five members and expanding it to as many as ten. The current nine-member structure has remained in place since 1869.
The debate also echoes one of the most famous clashes in U.S. constitutional history. In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to add additional justices after the court repeatedly struck down elements of his New Deal agenda. The proposal triggered fierce opposition and ultimately failed, becoming a lasting cautionary tale in discussions about court expansion.
For now, the latest amendment represents more of a political statement than a realistic path to constitutional change. Yet its advancement underscores how the Supreme Court remains at the center of one of Washington’s most enduring and contentious power struggles.
