H.R.1074 - Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1074, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025, proposes significant changes to the structure and operation of the Supreme Court. The bill introduces 18-year term limits for justices, mandates regular appointments every two years following a presidential election, and alters the process for filling vacancies with senior justices. It also includes a provision that deems the Senate to have waived its advice and consent authority if it does not act on a nomination within 120 days.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would lead to a more predictable and potentially less politically charged Supreme Court appointment process. It would also create a system of regular turnover on the court, potentially leading to a more dynamic and representative judiciary. The power of the Senate in confirming justices could be diminished due to the waiver provision.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced Political Polarization: Regular appointments could decrease the stakes of individual Supreme Court nominations, potentially reducing political polarization.
- Increased Predictability: The fixed appointment schedule would make the composition of the court more predictable.
- Fresh Perspectives: Term limits could bring in new legal minds and perspectives more regularly.
- Reduced Lifetime Influence: Limits the potential for any single justice to exert influence on legal precedent for an extended period.
- Accountability: Regular turnover may increase the court's responsiveness to evolving societal values.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced Judicial Independence: Term limits could make justices more concerned with their post-service careers, potentially affecting their impartiality.
- Loss of Experience: The 18-year term limit may force experienced justices to leave the court prematurely.
- Increased Political Influence: Regular appointments could still be highly politicized, especially if the President and Senate are from opposing parties.
- Unintended Consequences: The waiver of advice and consent could lead to the appointment of controversial justices without thorough vetting.
- Disruption of Precedent: More frequent turnover could lead to instability in legal precedent.
Constitutional Alignment
The constitutionality of H.R. 1074 is debatable. Article II, Section 2 grants the President the power to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint Supreme Court Justices. The bill's provision regarding the waiver of the Senate's advice and consent authority could be challenged as an infringement on the Senate's constitutional role. Additionally, the establishment of term limits may be viewed as an unconstitutional alteration of the life tenure traditionally associated with Supreme Court justices, although supporters argue Congress has the power to regulate the court's composition and procedures.
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).