Dozens of organizations have come together in support of legislation that would place limits on how long a Supreme Court justice can serve, restricting their tenure to 18 years.
The legislation would also guarantee a sitting president two appointments to the Court for every four-year term they serve, giving them the chance to nominate a justice to the bench in the first and third year of said term — but limiting them from appointing more than that.
Fifty-six advocacy organizations are endorsing the bill, titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, which was first submitted by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) in 2022. Since Johnson re-submitted his bill to Congress last fall, it has been racking up co-sponsors, including Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), Pramila Jayapal (D-Michigan), Jerry Nadler (D-New York), and most recently Katie Porter (D-California), who signed on as a cosponsor on March 29.
Among the notable organizations that have endorsed the legislation are Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Brennan Center for Justice, DemCast USA, MoveOn, Indivisible, Voices for Progress, Working Families Party, and Stand Up America.
In addition to the 18-year limit imposed on justices’ tenures and the limit on how many justices a president can appoint to the High Court, the bill has provisions that would reduce the chances of abuse from other branches of government, including from Congress and specifically the Senate, which constitutionally provides “advice and consent” to the president to approve justices. That chamber, for example, could not refuse to approve or disapprove a nominee indefinitely, as the GOP-controlled Senate did against former President Barack Obama in 2016, effectively blocking his nominee, Merrick Garland, at that time.
Instead, under the proposed legislation, the Senate would have 90 days to decide on a proposed nominee. If that initial nominee is rejected, subsequent nominees from a president would have to be decided on within 120 days.
The bill would also allow the Court to fill unexpected vacancies in a novel way — if the number of justices ever dips below nine (due to the continued refusal to sit a nominee, for example, or in the event of a justice’s death or early retirement), the chief justice of the Court would choose, at random, a retired justice to serve in the position until the vacancy is filled.
“The United States remains the only modern constitutional democracy in the world without term or age limits [for its highest court] and virtually every state’s highest court has likewise rejected life tenure,” a press release from Stand Up America read.
Christina Harvey, that organization’s executive director, said that the mechanism proposed by Johnson would reduce the politicization seen on the Court in recent years, stating:
Extremists on the Supreme Court have undermined our democracy and fundamental freedoms by gutting voting rights, opening the floodgates to unlimited corporate money in our elections, and reversing 50 years of precedent by overturning Roe v. Wade.
“No one deserves power for life,” Harvey added. “That’s why 49 out of 50 states have either term limits, elections, or age limits for their highest courts. To protect our democracy and our fundamental freedoms, Congress should enact term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court.”
In reintroducing his bill last fall, Johnson also stated that the TERM Act was necessary because “lifetime tenure on the United States Supreme Court leads to a Court that is insulated from, and unaccountable to, the American people, which is bad for democracy.”
Polling on the issue of tenure limits for Supreme Court justices has consistently shown that American voters would be highly supportive of such a measure. An Associated Press/NORC poll from July of last year, for example, found that 67 percent of Americans would support a proposal that would carve out a specific number of years that a justice could serve.
Similarly, a University of Massachusetts Amherst poll released a month prior to the AP/NORC survey found that around two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) supported tenure limits.
“Americans are angry with a Supreme Court that seems out of touch and ideologically extreme,” said Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at the university and co-director of the poll. “This frustration is showing in huge public support for major reforms, including ethics requirements for justices as well as term limits.”
Help us Prepare for Trump’s Day One
Trump is busy getting ready for Day One of his presidency – but so is Truthout.
Trump has made it no secret that he is planning a demolition-style attack on both specific communities and democracy as a whole, beginning on his first day in office. With over 25 executive orders and directives queued up for January 20, he’s promised to “launch the largest deportation program in American history,” roll back anti-discrimination protections for transgender students, and implement a “drill, drill, drill” approach to ramp up oil and gas extraction.
Organizations like Truthout are also being threatened by legislation like HR 9495, the “nonprofit killer bill” that would allow the Treasury Secretary to declare any nonprofit a “terrorist-supporting organization” and strip its tax-exempt status without due process. Progressive media like Truthout that has courageously focused on reporting on Israel’s genocide in Gaza are in the bill’s crosshairs.
As journalists, we have a responsibility to look at hard realities and communicate them to you. We hope that you, like us, can use this information to prepare for what’s to come.
And if you feel uncertain about what to do in the face of a second Trump administration, we invite you to be an indispensable part of Truthout’s preparations.
In addition to covering the widespread onslaught of draconian policy, we’re shoring up our resources for what might come next for progressive media: bad-faith lawsuits from far-right ghouls, legislation that seeks to strip us of our ability to receive tax-deductible donations, and further throttling of our reach on social media platforms owned by Trump’s sycophants.
We’re preparing right now for Trump’s Day One: building a brave coalition of movement media; reaching out to the activists, academics, and thinkers we trust to shine a light on the inner workings of authoritarianism; and planning to use journalism as a tool to equip movements to protect the people, lands, and principles most vulnerable to Trump’s destruction.
We urgently need your help to prepare. As you know, our December fundraiser is our most important of the year and will determine the scale of work we’ll be able to do in 2025. We’ve set two goals: to raise $81,000 in one-time donations and to add 1250 new monthly donors by midnight on December 31.
Today, we’re asking all of our readers to start a monthly donation or make a one-time donation – as a commitment to stand with us on day one of Trump’s presidency, and every day after that, as we produce journalism that combats authoritarianism, censorship, injustice, and misinformation. You’re an essential part of our future – please join the movement by making a tax-deductible donation today.
If you have the means to make a substantial gift, please dig deep during this critical time!
With gratitude and resolve,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy