House Blocks Reactionary Attempt to Cement Supreme Court’s Conservative Power
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The House voted 212-206 against a Republican-led constitutional amendment that would have locked in the Supreme Court’s conservative majority by fixing its size at nine, resisting right-wing efforts to entrench minority rule.
On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a joint resolution that would have amended the Constitution to permanently fix the Supreme Court at nine justices—a move widely seen as an attempt by conservatives to protect their grip on the judiciary. The measure, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), failed with 212 voting against and 206 in favor, falling short of the two-thirds supermajority required to advance such an amendment.
Democrats, with only one exception, stood united in opposition, reflecting the party’s growing willingness to challenge the reactionary status quo of the Court. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) called for a “no” vote, emphasizing that the amendment would strip Congress of its constitutional authority and do nothing to address the urgent need for judicial reform.
The Constitution does not dictate the number of Supreme Court justices, and Congress has changed the size of the bench multiple times since 1789, most recently setting it at nine in 1869. While this vote did not directly address expansion, it signals a shift in the political landscape, as more Democrats now openly support adding justices to counter the Court’s rightward drift and to restore balance after years of partisan manipulation.
Josh Orton, president of Demand Justice, noted that expanding the Court is no longer a fringe idea but a mainstream demand, fueled by public outrage at the Court’s regressive decisions. Influential voices like former House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and former Vice President Kamala Harris have advocated for expanding the bench to 13 seats, reflecting the urgent need for a judiciary that represents the people, not entrenched interests.
Republican leaders, desperate to preserve their minority rule through the courts, framed the vote as a messaging ploy ahead of the 2026 midterms. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) doubled down on the party’s commitment to maintaining nine seats, revealing their fear of a more democratic and representative judiciary.
A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers before being sent to the states—a high bar that, for now, has protected the possibility of much-needed Supreme Court reform.