Senate Democrats Seek 18-Year Supreme Court Terms With New Justice Every Two Years

Senate Democrats are pushing a plan that would end decades-long active service on the Supreme Court, replacing today's unpredictable vacancies with a new justice every two years.

The Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act, as reported by Bloomberg Law, would establish 18-year active terms for the nation's highest court. Introduced by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Alex Padilla of California, the proposal would have presidents nominate one justice during the first and third years of each four-year term, subject to Senate confirmation.

Once their 18 years expired, justices would move to senior status rather than leave the federal judiciary. They would retain lifetime appointments while stepping away from the Supreme Court's regular appellate docket.

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would ordinarily decide appellate cases, which account for most of the court's work. Senior justices could return when an active member was recused or otherwise unavailable and would continue handling matters falling under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

Padilla said the proposal is intended to reduce the political stakes surrounding vacancies and rebuild confidence in the institution. “Term limits are a commonsense solution to lower the temperature on the Judiciary,” he said while announcing the legislation.

The change would not begin immediately if Congress approved it. Its appointment schedule would take effect at the beginning of the first new presidential term after enactment, preventing the sitting president from immediately receiving additional scheduled appointments.

Seven additional Democratic senators have joined the legislation: Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Peter Welch of Vermont, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Adam Schiff of California and Patty Murray of Washington.

Advocacy organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice, Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Project on Government Oversight have endorsed the proposal. Supporters argue that predictable vacancies would reduce the role that deaths and retirements play in determining how many Supreme Court appointments each president receives.

Passage would still leave a potentially consequential constitutional question. Supporters contend Congress can establish the system by statute because justices would retain lifetime judicial appointments, while opponents of that approach argue Article III's guarantee that federal judges hold office during “good Behaviour” requires a constitutional amendment for Supreme Court term limits.

Under the proposal, the nine justices currently serving would not face an immediate reshuffling. Instead, its scheduled appointments and 18-year active terms would gradually change how future presidents and senators shape the Supreme Court's membership.