Democrats block Republican effort to set the Supreme Court’s size at nine justices

The U.S. House of Representatives rejected a Republican-sponsored constitutional amendment that would have permanently set the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices.

The measure failed 212-206, well short of the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment. Only one Democrat, Representative Don Davis of North Carolina, joined Republicans in supporting it.

The vote and proposal

Republicans argued the amendment was necessary to prevent a future Democratic majority from expanding the Supreme Court with liberal justices. Democrats countered that Congress should retain its constitutional authority to determine the court’s size.

The joint resolution, introduced by Representative Andy Biggs, an Arizona Republican, proposed amending the Constitution to state that “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.”

The measure received near-unanimous Republican support. Representative Kevin Kiley, an independent from California who caucuses with Republicans, was the only Republican-aligned lawmaker to oppose it.

Democrats explain their opposition

The office of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, a Massachusetts Democrat, urged lawmakers to reject the amendment, arguing that it would strip Congress of a constitutional power while doing nothing to address what it called the “affordability crisis” under President Donald Trump.

Clark’s office wrote ahead of the vote that “This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives.”

Representative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania Democrat, told the House that “This proposed constitutional amendment would undermine our system of checks and balances.”

Scanlon called the proposal a “grave mistake” and a “misguided Constitutional amendment that would permanently tie Congress’ hands.”

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who requested the recorded vote, accused Trump and Republicans of having already undermined the court. He pointed to Republicans’ refusal to hold a confirmation hearing for former Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland during the Obama administration, calling it “court packing on steroids.”

Republicans defend the amendment

Republicans presented the vote as a response to growing Democratic support for expanding the Supreme Court.

Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, accused Democrats of seeking to change the court’s ideological balance. Referring to Democratic expansion proposals, he said, “They want to take the Court from a six-three conservative majority Court to a seven-six liberal Court. It’s all planned.”

Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the House Republicans’ campaign arm, also attacked Democrats, saying, “Give House Democrats an ounce of power and they’ll use every bit of it to fundamentally transform America into an unrecognizable socialist hellscape.”

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said Republicans would maintain the nine-seat court as long as they control the House.

Biggs argued that the Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869 and said formally establishing that number in the Constitution would not prevent a future change through the same constitutional amendment process.

Why the vote was held

The Supreme Court resolution was one of several messaging votes organized by House Republican leaders ahead of the midterm elections.

The package included a separate measure condemning socialism and was designed to highlight Republican arguments against Democrats as Democratic lawmakers have become increasingly open to expanding the Supreme Court.

The path a constitutional amendment must take

Even if the House had approved the measure, it would have faced a long path to becoming law.

Under Article V of the Constitution, a proposed amendment must receive a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate before being sent to the states for ratification.

Three-fourths of the states, currently 38, must then ratify the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution.

Those high thresholds make constitutional amendments difficult to enact and relatively few have been adopted in U.S. history.