Speaker Johnson Defends Judicial Integrity with Amendment to Protect Nine-Justice Supreme Court
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.
Speaker Mike Johnson introduced a constitutional amendment to safeguard the Supreme Court from partisan court-packing schemes by fixing the number of justices at nine. The measure was rejected by House Democrats, who continue to push for expanding the court.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson took decisive action to preserve the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court by announcing a proposal to amend the Constitution and set the Court’s size at nine justices. The resolution, formally introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, reached the House floor on Wednesday but was blocked by Democrats, with votes split along party lines. This marks the first time in three decades that a House speaker has led a constitutional amendment effort to protect the Court from political manipulation.
Johnson emphasized the necessity of a constitutional amendment, pointing out that the current nine-justice limit is only established by statute and could be easily changed by radical leftist legislation. Democrats have been openly plotting to expand the Court, with figures such as Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and Rep. Jim Clyburn pushing a dangerous 13-justice plan that would undermine judicial independence and turn the Court into a partisan tool.
"The amendment would strip Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives," House Minority Whip Katherine Clark said, defending Democrats’ desire to politicize the judiciary.
Republican lawmakers have consistently fought to defend the Supreme Court from partisan court-packing, including a similar amendment filed by Sen. Ted Cruz last year, which also failed due to Democrat obstruction. The debate highlights the stark contrast between Republicans’ commitment to judicial stability and Democrats’ relentless efforts to seize control of the nation’s highest court.