HR-8647-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Al Green (D-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend Title 28 of the U.S. Code to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 13, and would raise the quorum required for Court business from 6 to 8 justices. It would do this by changing the statutory numbers — "eight" to "twelve" associate justices, and "six" to "eight" for quorum — leaving all other Court procedures and rules unchanged.
Who benefits
The political party or coalition that controls the White House and Senate at the time of enactment, as they would appoint and confirm the four new justices. Litigants whose cases align with the legal philosophy of the newly appointed justices. Legal advocacy organizations whose preferred outcomes may be more achievable with a differently composed Court. Indirectly, all Americans whose rights or interests are affected by Supreme Court decisions that shift in a new direction.
Who is hurt
The current nine sitting justices, whose individual influence on outcomes would be diluted. Litigants and advocacy organizations whose preferred legal outcomes depend on the current Court's composition and doctrine. Americans who value institutional stability and predictability in the law, as settled precedents could be revisited more quickly. Future minority-party presidents and Senates, who may face a Court shaped entirely by the opposing party. Potentially the Court's institutional legitimacy if the public perceives the expansion as politically motivated.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the size of the Supreme Court is set by statute, not the Constitution, and has been changed seven times in U.S. history — most recently in 1869 — demonstrating that Congress has clear authority to act. They contend that recent confirmation battles have produced a Court whose composition does not reflect the full range of American legal thought, and that adding four seats would restore balance and improve the Court's capacity to handle its growing docket. They also argue that a 13-justice Court would align with the 13 federal circuit courts of appeals, providing a structural rationale beyond partisan considerations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding the Court in direct response to disliked rulings sets a dangerous precedent of "court-packing" that could trigger retaliatory expansions by future Congresses, ultimately destroying the Court's independence and public legitimacy. They contend that the Court's authority rests on its perceived neutrality, and that a 2021 Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court found no consensus among legal scholars that expansion would improve the institution. They further argue that the bill's timing — introduced after a series of consequential rulings — makes clear its purpose is to alter outcomes rather than address any structural deficiency.
Constitutional context
Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in "one supreme Court" but does not specify the number of justices, leaving that to Congress by statute. The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses (14th Amendment) are indirectly relevant because the new justices would rule on cases involving those provisions. No Supreme Court case has directly ruled on Congress's authority to set Court size, but the historical practice of statutory changes is well established.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain the power to reshape the Court's ideological composition by creating four new seats; the check on this power is the Senate confirmation process for each new nominee, plus the President's nomination authority — meaning all three political actors must align for the seats to be filled.
Historical precedent
Congress has changed the size of the Supreme Court seven times, with the Court ranging from 5 to 10 justices; the last change was the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number at nine. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 "court-packing" proposal to add up to six justices failed in Congress but remains the most prominent modern analogue.