Overview

• Proposes a constitutional amendment setting Supreme Court size at nine justices: one chief justice and eight associate justices
• Type: House Joint Resolution requiring supermajority approval and state ratification
• Current status: Introduced January 3, 2025; referred to House Judiciary Committee

Who does this affect?

• Main groups: Future presidents and Congresses who would be constitutionally barred from changing Court size; Supreme Court appointments process
• Teen impact score: 2/10 (minimal teen connection; addresses government structure, not policies affecting daily life)

What This Bill Does

• Requires Supreme Court composition to be exactly nine justices (one chief, eight associate) as permanent constitutional mandate
• Must pass both House and Senate with two-thirds majority vote in each chamber
• If Congress approves, goes to state legislatures for ratification; needs approval from three-fourths of states (38 out of 50)
• Sets seven-year deadline from date of congressional submission for states to ratify
• If ratified, locks in nine-justice Court permanently; future changes would require another constitutional amendment

Legislative Status

• Introduced in House on January 3, 2025 by Rep. Biggs of Arizona
• Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary for initial consideration
• Constitutional amendments face high bar: require two-thirds vote in both chambers, then ratification by 38 states within seven years

In short

• Would write the current nine-justice Supreme Court size directly into the Constitution
• Prevents future presidents or Congresses from expanding or shrinking the Court through regular legislation
• Requires extraordinary majorities to pass: two-thirds of House and Senate, then three-fourths of state legislatures
• If ratified, changes Court size in future would require another constitutional amendment
• States would have seven years to ratify after congressional approval

Why should I care?

The Supreme Court makes final decisions on major issues like abortion access, gun rights, free speech, and discrimination laws. This amendment wouldn't change what the Court decides, but it would lock in the number of justices who make those decisions. Some argue a fixed size prevents one political party from manipulating Court composition by adding justices. Others say Congress should keep flexibility to adjust Court size as the country grows, just as it did six times between 1789 and 1869. The debate centers on whether the Court's structure should be permanently fixed or remain adaptable through regular legislation.