H.J.Res.1 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.J.Res. 1 proposes a constitutional amendment to fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. The resolution requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to pass, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years.
The proposed amendment aims to prevent future attempts to alter the size of the Supreme Court for political advantage, often referred to as "court packing."
The amendment's success depends on bipartisan support and widespread agreement among the states on the importance of maintaining the Supreme Court's current structure.
Expected Effects
If ratified, this amendment would constitutionally mandate that the Supreme Court consists of nine justices, preventing future Congresses and Presidents from changing the number.
This would likely reduce uncertainty about the court's composition and potentially decrease the politicization of judicial appointments.
However, it could also limit flexibility in responding to unforeseen circumstances that might warrant a different number of justices.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Stability: Ensures a consistent size of the Supreme Court, reducing political manipulation.
- Reduced Politicization: May decrease the intensity of confirmation battles by removing the option of court packing.
- Preservation of Tradition: Reinforces the historical norm of a nine-member court.
- Clarity and Certainty: Provides a clear constitutional rule, avoiding future debates on the ideal number of justices.
- Upholding Judicial Independence: Prevents the legislative or executive branches from altering the court's size to influence its decisions.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Flexibility: Limits the ability to adapt the size of the court to future needs or changing circumstances.
- Potential for Gridlock: A fixed number may exacerbate the impact of vacancies or ideological imbalances.
- Difficulty of Amendment: Amending the Constitution is a high bar, making it difficult to correct any unforeseen negative consequences.
- Entrenchment of Current System: Preserves the existing structure, potentially hindering future reforms or improvements to the court.
- Perpetuation of Perceived Imbalance: If the current ideological makeup of the court is viewed as unfair, this amendment would solidify that imbalance.
Constitutional Alignment
This resolution aligns with Article V of the US Constitution, which outlines the process for amending the Constitution. It requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The proposed amendment itself does not conflict with any existing constitutional provisions. It seeks to add a new article specifying the composition of the Supreme Court.
However, some might argue that fixing the court's size could indirectly affect the balance of power among the three branches of government, a core principle of the Constitution.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).