HR-3544-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Henry Johnson (D-GA)
What it does
This bill would limit Supreme Court justices to a single 18-year term of active service, after which they would transition to senior (retired) status. It would establish a regular appointment schedule of two new justices per presidential term — one in the first year and one in the third year after a presidential election. The Senate would be required to act on nominations within 90 days (or 120 days for subsequent nominations). Current sitting justices would be phased out of active service in order of seniority as new justices are confirmed under the new system. Retired justices would retain their office and could be called back temporarily by the Chief Justice through a randomized process if the Court falls below its full complement due to vacancy, disability, or disqualification.
Who benefits
Future presidents who would be guaranteed at least two Supreme Court appointments per term, reducing the role of chance in shaping the Court's composition. Voters and political parties whose presidential election outcomes would more predictably translate into Court appointments. Legal scholars and reform advocates who argue that predictable rotation reduces strategic retirement timing by justices. Younger legal professionals who may have more frequent opportunities to be considered for the Court. Indirectly, all Americans who interact with the legal system and whose rights are shaped by Supreme Court decisions.
Who is hurt
Current sitting justices who would be transitioned off the active Court earlier than they otherwise would under lifetime tenure. Future justices who would serve shorter terms than under the current system. Parties in litigation who may face uncertainty during a transition period with a changing Court composition. Those who favor the current system's insulation of justices from political cycles, including some judicial independence advocates. Potentially, litigants whose cases are heard by a temporarily recalled senior justice rather than a fully active one.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that lifetime tenure — averaging over 26 years for recent justices — was not the Founders' intent and has produced a Court whose composition depends heavily on the timing of deaths and strategic retirements rather than democratic accountability. They contend that 18-year staggered terms would normalize appointments, reduce the outsized stakes of any single vacancy, and align the U.S. with virtually every other major democracy, which uses fixed judicial terms. They also argue the current system incentivizes justices to time retirements for partisan advantage, undermining the Court's legitimacy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Article III of the Constitution explicitly guarantees federal judges tenure "during good behaviour," which courts have consistently interpreted as lifetime tenure, and that a statute cannot override this constitutional guarantee without a constitutional amendment. They contend that guaranteeing two appointments per presidential term would further politicize the Court by making every presidential election a direct referendum on its composition. They also argue that phasing out current justices mid-service would effectively remove them from office without impeachment, raising serious separation of powers concerns.
Constitutional context
Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," which has long been understood to mean lifetime tenure absent impeachment. This bill's core mechanism — transitioning justices to senior status after 18 years — directly implicates this clause. While the bill does not formally remove justices (they retain their office and salary), critics argue that stripping active service constitutes a functional removal. The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses (14th Amendment) are less directly relevant here; the primary constitutional question is whether Congress's Article III authority over court structure and the size of the Court permits it to define "active service" in a way that effectively limits tenure.
Checks and balances
The legislative branch would gain significant structural influence over the Court's composition by guaranteeing two appointments per presidential term; the primary check is the Senate's advice and consent role, though the bill's 90-day confirmation deadline would constrain the Senate's ability to indefinitely block nominees.
Historical precedent
No federal statute has previously imposed term limits on Supreme Court justices; Congress has altered the Court's size multiple times historically (most recently in 1869), but has never legislatively limited the duration of active service of Article III judges.