Failed
212 Yea206 Nay15 Not voting2/3 required
HJRES-1-119
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 212 - 206 (Roll no. 293).
Sponsored by Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
What it does
This joint resolution would propose a constitutional amendment permanently fixing the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices — one chief justice and eight associate justices. To take effect, it would need approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures (38 states) within seven years of submission.
Who benefits
Americans who value predictability and stability in the Supreme Court's composition. Future litigants and lower courts who would have greater certainty about the Court's structure. State legislatures that would gain a direct role in ratifying a structural change to the federal judiciary. Political parties or movements that currently hold a majority on the nine-justice Court, as the amendment would lock in that structure.
Who is hurt
Future Congresses and presidents who would lose the flexibility to resize the Court in response to caseload growth or other institutional needs. Legal scholars and reformers who argue that Court expansion is a legitimate democratic tool. Political parties or movements that might otherwise seek to add justices to shift the Court's ideological balance. Potentially, litigants in future eras if a fixed nine-member Court becomes unable to handle its docket efficiently.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Constitution's silence on Court size creates a dangerous vulnerability to "court-packing" — the addition of justices for purely partisan purposes — which would undermine judicial independence and public trust in the Court. They point to Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing proposal as a historical warning, and to recent legislative proposals to expand the Court to 13 justices, as evidence that the threat is real and recurring. Locking in nine justices, they contend, insulates the judiciary from political manipulation and preserves the separation of powers.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the Constitution deliberately left Court size to Congress, giving each generation the flexibility to adapt the judiciary to the nation's needs — Congress has changed the Court's size seven times since 1789. They contend that permanently entrenching nine justices removes a legitimate democratic check on a lifetime-appointed body and could create institutional problems if, for example, recusals or vacancies produce deadlocked 4-4 decisions with no mechanism for resolution. Fixing the number in the Constitution, they argue, trades one political risk for a different kind of structural rigidity.
Constitutional context
The Constitution (Article III) does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices; Congress has set that number by statute since the Judiciary Act of 1789. This resolution would use the Article V amendment process to elevate the nine-justice structure to constitutional status, placing it beyond ordinary legislative change. No Supreme Court case directly governs Court size, as the question has always been treated as a political one within Congress's Article I authority.
Checks and balances
Congress would permanently surrender its Article I authority to set the Court's size by statute; the only remaining check would be the Article V amendment process itself, requiring supermajority congressional and state approval to make any future change.
Historical precedent
Congress has changed the Supreme Court's size seven times by statute, most recently in 1869 when it was set at nine justices; President Roosevelt's 1937 proposal to expand the Court to up to 15 justices failed in Congress but prompted renewed debate about whether Court size should be constitutionally fixed.
Failed