The renewed debate gained momentum after Representative Mike Levin, a Democrat from California, said he would co-sponsor a bill aimed at changing how long Supreme Court justices are allowed to serve.
His announcement added to a growing push among Democrats who believe the Court has become too powerful, too partisan, and too disconnected from the public. Still, even supporters admit the proposal faces massive legal and political obstacles from the very beginning.
At the center of the problem is the U.S. Constitution itself. Article III clearly says that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” For more than two centuries, this has been understood to mean lifetime appointments unless a justice resigns, retires, or is removed through impeachment. Because of this wording, most constitutional scholars agree that Congress cannot simply pass a law to limit Supreme Court terms.
To truly change that rule, the country would likely need a constitutional amendment, which requires overwhelming support from both Congress and the states. That process is extremely difficult and rarely successful.
Despite this, the bill, officially named the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025, was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 6 and sent to the House Judiciary Committee. While its sponsors frame it as a serious reform effort, many observers see it as having almost no chance of becoming law in the current political climate.
Republicans, who currently benefit from a solid 6–3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, have shown little interest in changing the system. From their perspective, the Court’s structure is working exactly as intended. Without Republican support, the bill cannot move forward, making it more of a political statement than a realistic legislative plan. In that sense, it reflects growing Democratic frustration after years of losing key judicial battles.
The anger and urgency behind the proposal stem from a decade of bitter Supreme Court confirmation fights. In 2016, Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings for President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, arguing that the decision should be left to the next president. When Donald Trump took office, Republicans quickly confirmed Neil Gorsuch in 2017. That shift alone reshaped the Court. The tension escalated further in 2020, when Republicans rushed to confirm Amy Coney Barrett just days before a presidential election, directly contradicting the position they had taken four years earlier.
For many Democrats and progressives, these moves shattered trust in the fairness of the confirmation process. When combined with a series of conservative rulings on abortion rights, gun laws, environmental regulations, and the power of federal agencies, the belief has grown that the Court is locked into a conservative direction for decades, regardless of election outcomes. This sense of imbalance has fueled calls for reform, even if those reforms face long odds.
Under the proposed bill, Supreme Court justices would serve 18-year terms instead of lifetime appointments. The idea is to create a predictable and steady appointment system. Every president would nominate two justices per four-year term, with new appointments occurring every two years. Supporters argue that this would remove the incentive for justices to time their retirements for political reasons and would reduce the chaos and drama surrounding sudden vacancies.
The bill is sponsored by Representative Ro Khanna of California and backed by several Democratic co-sponsors, including Levin. Levin has publicly said that fixed terms would help restore balance and predictability to the Court. He argues that Americans deserve a system where changes to the Court happen gradually and transparently, rather than through sudden power shifts caused by death or strategic retirement.
Supporters are also careful to note that the bill would not remove any current justices. Anyone already serving on the Court when the law takes effect would be exempt from the term limits. Future justices, however, would transition into a “senior justice” role after completing their 18 years. In that role, they could still hear cases and perform judicial duties when assigned by the chief justice, similar to how senior judges already function across the federal court system.
Another controversial part of the proposal deals with Senate confirmation delays. The bill says that if the Senate fails to act on a Supreme Court nominee within 120 days, the Senate would be considered to have waived its right to approve or reject the nominee. The justice would then automatically take their seat. Supporters argue this would prevent political obstruction and long vacancies, while critics say it would dangerously weaken the Senate’s constitutional role.
Advocates of term limits often point to state courts as an example. Nearly every state uses some form of term limits, mandatory retirement, or reappointment for their highest courts. They argue that these systems preserve judicial independence while preventing any single judge from holding enormous power for decades. In their view, lifetime appointments made sense centuries ago but no longer fit a modern democracy.
Still, serious legal questions remain unanswered. Even if the bill somehow passed Congress, it would almost certainly be challenged in court. Judges would need to decide whether Congress has the authority to impose term limits through legislation alone or whether such a change requires amending the Constitution. That uncertainty alone makes lawmakers hesitant to fully back the proposal.
For now, the bill remains stuck in the House Judiciary Committee, without hearings or a vote. Its future is unclear, and its chances of becoming law are slim. Yet its existence sends a powerful message. It reflects deep dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s direction and growing concern about its legitimacy in the eyes of many Americans.
Even if term limits never become reality, the debate itself signals a widening divide over the role of the Supreme Court in American life. With a conservative majority likely to remain in place for years, Democrats appear increasingly willing to push reform ideas that may fail legislatively but serve as a warning that confidence in the Court is eroding—and that the fight over its future is far from over.
