WASHINGTON — Growing anger among Democrats and liberal activists over the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly turning into a campaign for structural change, with proposals ranging from expanding the number of justices to imposing term limits and strengthening ethics requirements.
The debate is gaining momentum as the 2026 midterm elections approach. Democratic leaders and progressive lawmakers are discussing reforms that would fundamentally alter how the nation's highest court operates and, potentially, how much influence individual presidents can have over it.
The Supreme Court currently has nine members — one chief justice and eight associate justices. Congress, rather than the Constitution itself, determines the size of the Court. The number has changed several times in American history, reaching as high as 10 before settling at nine in 1869.
A push to expand the Court
One of the most consequential proposals would increase the Court from nine justices to 13.
Supporters argue that adding four seats would give Congress an opportunity to address what they view as an increasingly ideological and politically unbalanced judiciary. Critics, however, describe the proposal as an attempt to "pack" the Court with judges favored by the party in power.
The Washington Post reported Sunday that Democratic proposals now include legislation to expand the Court to 13 members, alongside separate efforts to establish 18-year terms for justices.
The controversy is rooted partly in the Court's current conservative majority. Three justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were appointed by President Donald Trump during his first administration. Their appointments helped create the Court's current 6-3 conservative alignment.
For Democrats, that history is central to the argument that the modern confirmation system can allow a president to shape constitutional law for decades.
Term limits would change the system
Another major proposal would replace lifetime active service with fixed terms, commonly envisioned as 18 years.
Under such a system, justices would regularly rotate through active service rather than remaining on the Court until death or retirement. Advocates argue that predictable vacancies could make appointments more regular and reduce the importance of individual retirements.
The Brennan Center for Justice has argued that 18-year terms combined with regularized appointments could give each presidential administration a more predictable opportunity to influence the Court while preventing one president from transforming its ideological balance for generations.
The proposal would represent a major departure from the traditional understanding of federal judicial tenure. Article III provides that federal judges hold office during "good Behaviour," which has traditionally allowed Supreme Court justices to serve for life unless they resign, retire or are removed through impeachment.
Supporters contend that term limits could preserve judicial independence if justices continued to receive protected salaries and remained judges even after their active Supreme Court service ended.
Opponents argue that changing lifetime tenure could weaken the Court's independence by making its membership more closely tied to political cycles.
Ethics rules are another target
Democrats are also pressing for stronger and enforceable ethics requirements.
The issue has become particularly important as criticism of the Supreme Court has increasingly focused not only on judicial decisions but also on questions surrounding conflicts of interest, gifts, travel and disclosure.
The Court adopted a code of conduct in 2023, but critics have argued that it lacks a sufficiently independent enforcement mechanism. Reform advocates therefore want Congress to establish clearer standards and procedures for investigating potential violations.
The goal, supporters say, is not simply to change who sits on the Court but to strengthen public confidence in the institution.
The "shadow docket" comes under scrutiny
Another area of Democratic interest is the Court's use of emergency orders and other decisions issued without the lengthy opinions normally associated with major cases.
This part of the Court's work is often referred to as the "shadow docket." Reform advocates have proposed greater transparency and clearer standards governing how the Court handles these emergency matters.
The Washington Post reported that some Democratic proposals would establish standards for the Court's use of the shadow docket, adding another layer to the broader reform movement.
Supporters argue that decisions affecting major government policies and individual rights should receive greater explanation and transparency.
Why the issue has become politically explosive
The Supreme Court has always been politically consequential, but the stakes have become especially high because justices can serve for decades.
A president who appoints multiple justices can influence constitutional law long after leaving office. Trump's three appointments during his first term demonstrated how quickly the Court's ideological balance can change when several vacancies occur in a single presidency.
That has encouraged both parties to view Supreme Court nominations as a central political issue.
For Democrats, recent decisions involving abortion, voting rights, executive authority and federal regulation have intensified concerns about the Court's conservative majority. At the same time, the Court has occasionally ruled against the Trump administration, demonstrating that the justices cannot simply be treated as a single political bloc.
Republicans are likely to fight the proposals
Any attempt to expand the Court or impose major structural changes would face fierce Republican opposition.
Republicans have compared court expansion to the famous 1937 "court-packing" controversy surrounding President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when Roosevelt sought legislation that would have allowed additional justices to be appointed.
Critics of today's expansion proposals argue that changing the number of justices whenever one party dislikes the Court's decisions could create a dangerous precedent.
Their concern is straightforward: if Democrats expand the Court when they regain power, Republicans could later respond by adding even more seats when they control Congress and the White House.
That could turn the Supreme Court into an institution whose size changes repeatedly with partisan control.
The political road ahead
For now, the proposals remain more political agenda than imminent reality.
Passing major legislation would require Democrats to gain sufficient control of Congress and overcome the Senate's procedural obstacles. A future president would also need to support the reforms.
That makes the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election especially important to the future of the debate.
Democratic leaders increasingly appear to be presenting Supreme Court reform as part of a larger argument about the balance of power in Washington. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, among others, has expressed support for considering reforms such as term limits and expanding the Court.
The movement therefore extends beyond a single bill. It represents a growing argument within the Democratic Party that the Supreme Court itself needs structural changes rather than simply different nominees.
A battle over the future of the Court
The dispute ultimately raises a fundamental question about the American constitutional system: Should the Supreme Court remain largely insulated from political change, or should its structure evolve as the country and its political institutions change?
Supporters of reform say the Court's legitimacy depends on adapting to modern expectations of accountability, transparency and democratic representation.
Opponents say its independence depends precisely on resisting short-term political pressure.
That disagreement is unlikely to disappear.
As the 2026 elections approach, Supreme Court reform is moving from an idea discussed mainly by legal scholars and activists into a potentially major Democratic campaign issue. Whether voters ultimately embrace those proposals — and whether Democrats gain enough political power to enact them — could determine whether the nine-member Supreme Court remains unchanged or enters one of the most consequential periods of institutional reform in its history.
Also Read: Trump’s Patriot Games Set to Mix Schoolyard Sports With National Competition