SJRES-16-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX)
What it does
This joint resolution would propose a constitutional amendment permanently fixing the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. If approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures (38 states) within seven years, the nine-justice composition would become a constitutional requirement that could not be changed by ordinary legislation.
Who benefits
Any party, litigant, or interest group that benefits from the current ideological composition of the Court, since locking in nine seats prevents a future Congress from adding justices. State legislatures that ratify would gain a direct role in shaping a structural feature of the federal judiciary. Legal professionals and businesses that value predictability in Supreme Court composition and doctrine. Citizens who believe a stable Court size promotes judicial independence.
Who is hurt
Future Congresses and presidents who would permanently lose the authority to adjust Court size in response to caseload growth, vacancy crises, or other institutional needs. Any political coalition that might otherwise seek to expand the Court to shift its ideological balance. Advocates for judicial restructuring proposals (e.g., rotating panels, term limits paired with seat expansion) who would find those options foreclosed. Potentially, litigants in an era of dramatically increased federal caseload if nine justices prove insufficient over time.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the nine-justice Court has been a stable and trusted institution since 1869 and that allowing Congress to change its size by simple majority creates a dangerous incentive to "pack" the Court whenever a party controls both branches. They contend that constitutionalizing the nine-seat structure removes the Court from partisan gamesmanship, preserving its legitimacy as an independent branch — a concern that became acute when court-expansion proposals were introduced in Congress in 2021.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress has changed the Court's size seven times throughout history and that flexibility to adjust the number of justices is a legitimate legislative tool for managing the federal judiciary. They contend that permanently locking in nine seats via constitutional amendment removes a structural check on a Court that faces no elections and serves for life, and that future generations should not be bound by today's political circumstances when the needs of the judiciary may change substantially.
Constitutional context
The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices; Article III establishes "one supreme Court" but leaves its composition to Congress. This amendment would for the first time embed a specific Court size in the constitutional text, removing that authority from Congress under Article I. No Equal Protection, Commerce Clause, or other civil rights provisions are directly implicated, though the Court's composition affects how all constitutional rights are ultimately interpreted.
Checks and balances
Congress would permanently lose its Article I authority to set the Court's size by statute; the only remaining check would be the constitutional amendment process itself, requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states to make any future change.
Historical precedent
Congress has changed the size of the Supreme Court seven times by statute, most recently in 1869 when it was set at nine justices; no prior constitutional amendment has ever fixed the Court's size.