Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require the Supreme Court to be composed of nine justices. An amendment does not become part of the Constitution immediately; it must be approved by Congress and then ratified by the states. This resolution also sets a seven-year deadline for state ratification, and it would take effect only if the required number of states ratify it within that time.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by the specified supermajority in both the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the states; it is not sent to the President. This joint resolution includes a seven-year time limit for state ratification.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the Supreme Court to consist of nine justices: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
The amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years.
Single-issue but deeply partisan constitutional change; needs broad bipartisan supermajorities and 38 state ratifications.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted constitutional amendment that is precise in its operative text and includes the standard ratification timeline, but it does not state a legislative rationale, address interactions with existing statutory framework in detail, or anticipate operational edge cases or fiscal implications.
Progressives see amendment as entrenching conservative Court.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives see amendment as entrenching conservative Court.
Likely opposed because it constitutionally locks the Court size and blocks reforms like expansion or structural changes.
Views it as a reactionary move to preserve current Court composition.
Mixed but leaning supportive of preserving nine justices for stability.
Concerned about hardening institutions via constitutional amendment and potential unintended consequences.
Strongly supportive because it prevents Democratic-led court expansion and protects current conservative judicial gains.
Sees amendment as defensive preservation of judicial independence.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Single-issue but deeply partisan constitutional change; needs broad bipartisan supermajorities and 38 state ratifications.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives see amendment as entrenching conservative Court.
Single-issue but deeply partisan constitutional change; needs broad bipartisan supermajorities and 38 state ratifications.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted constitutional amendment that is precise in its operative text and includes the standard ratification timeline, but it does not state a legisla…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.