House Blocks Amendment to Entrench Conservative Supreme Court 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 U.S. House narrowly rejected a Republican-driven amendment that would have locked the Supreme Court at nine seats, preserving the current conservative majority and stifling progressive reforms.
On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down a Republican-sponsored joint resolution aimed at amending the Constitution to permanently fix the Supreme Court at its current nine seats—a move widely seen as an attempt to cement the Court’s conservative grip. The measure, which received 212 votes in favor and 206 against, failed to achieve the two-thirds supermajority required for constitutional amendments, reflecting deep partisan divides.
Notably, only one Democrat, Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, broke ranks to support the amendment, while independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, who typically aligns with Republicans, voted against it. This underscores the lack of genuine bipartisan consensus and the performative nature of the GOP’s effort.
House Speaker Mike Johnson took to X to frame the vote as a defense of the Constitution and a condemnation of socialism, attempting to conflate support for judicial reform with radical ideology. Johnson accused Democrats of politicizing the issue, despite the GOP’s own transparent maneuvering to protect their ideological advantage on the Court.
This vote came on the heels of another resolution, also orchestrated by Republicans, condemning socialism—a measure that passed 220-192 with some bipartisan support. Both resolutions are widely viewed as political theater designed to energize the Republican base ahead of the November midterm elections, rather than address substantive policy needs.
Progressive lawmakers and activists have long called for expanding the Supreme Court or instituting term limits to rebalance a judiciary increasingly out of step with the public. The Constitution is silent on the number of justices, leaving the door open for legislative action. Historical efforts to reform the Court, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 plan, faced fierce opposition from entrenched interests and ultimately failed.
Republican leaders, including Sen. Chuck Grassley, continue to resist any expansion, clinging to the rhetoric of ‘judicial independence’ while ignoring the urgent need for a more representative and equitable judiciary.