Republicans' attempt to cap Supreme Court at nine justices fails in House vote
Quick Look
- A Republican-backed constitutional amendment to fix the U.S.
- Supreme Court at nine justices failed in the House of Representatives, falling short of the required two-thirds majority with a vote of 212 in favor and 206 opposed.
- The vote occurred amid broader GOP efforts to frame Democrats as supportive of court expansion ahead of the November midterm elections.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
The U.S. Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, leaving the size to be determined by Congress. The court has had nine justices since 1869, though its size has changed throughout history. Recent Democratic calls to expand the court stem from frustration with its conservative supermajority, particularly after Donald Trump appointed three justices during his first term.
A proposed amendment to the United States Constitution has fallen short, after Republicans attempted to cap the number of seats on the nation’s Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives failed to advance a joint resolution championed by Republicans that would have permanently limited the court to its current number of justices: nine.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 items
list 1 of 3US Supreme Court allows Trump’s ballroom project to continue for now
list 2 of 3US Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on mail voting
list 3 of 3White House construction on $400m ballroom can go on, says US Supreme Court
end of list
The amendment’s final vote, which was mostly along party lines, was 212 in favour and 206 opposed.
A simple majority is needed to pass most legislation in the House, but constitutional amendments require two-thirds support.
Representative Don Davis of North Carolina was the only Democrat to vote in support of the amendment, while independent Representative Kevin Kiley of California, who caucuses with Republicans, voted against it.
The vote comes a day after the House voted 220 to 192 in favour of adopting a resolution condemning socialism. Eight Democrats joined with Republicans to advance the measure.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday took to social media to chide Democrats who voted against the two bills.
“For members of Congress who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, condemning socialism and defending the integrity of the Supreme Court shouldn’t be a controversial vote,” Johnson wrote on X. “Sadly, for today’s Democrats, they are.”
Both efforts effectively amount to messaging exercises by Republicans, who are attempting to put their Democratic counterparts on the record as not denouncing socialism and any Supreme Court expansion.
The manoeuvres come less than two months before November’s pivotal midterm elections, which will decide which party controls the chambers of Congress.
Some Democrats have called to add justices to the nation’s highest court to counter its conservative supermajority. The process, known among its opponents as “court packing”, is controversial.
But support for the idea gained momentum after US President Donald Trump appointed three justices to the bench in his first term. That conservative-led court has since handed him a string of legal victories.
In April 2021, four Democrats in the US Congress introduced a bill that would have created a Supreme Court with 13 justices.
They claimed it “would restore balance to the nation’s highest court after four years of norm-breaking actions by Republicans”.
The US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court but does not limit – or specify – its size, leaving the matter entirely to the nation’s lawmakers.
In 1789, the Judiciary Act established six justices: a chief justice and five associates. The court changed in size several times over the next century. The current number of seats was set in 1869 and has been subject to debate since.
The most famous attempt to change the court’s composition was under former President Franklin D Roosevelt.
After winning the 1936 election, Roosevelt proposed expanding the court, which would have added one justice for each justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices.
Since then, advocacy groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice, have proposed structural changes to the court, such as term limits and ethics codes, while some Democratic lawmakers have unsuccessfully called for a Roosevelt-like expansion.
The issue has reemerged in the midterm election season. In an interview with NBC News last month, Democratic Senator Jim Clyburn of South Carolina embraced the idea.
“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Clyburn said.
“Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. I would hope that we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, also suggested that Democrats should have a “real conversation” about “expanding the court to 13 justices”.
But Republicans, including Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, have remained staunchly opposed.
“We must safeguard the independence of the federal judiciary to protect our constitutional freedoms and way of life for generations to come,” Grassley said in a statement in June, citing Harris’s statements.
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Democrats will reintroduce legislation to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices if they gain or maintain control of Congress after the midterm elections.
Likely · Within months
Republicans will continue to use opposition to court packing as a campaign message in the November midterm elections.
Very likely · Within weeks
Open Questions
- Will Democrats reintroduce legislation to expand the Supreme Court after the midterm elections?
- How will the Supreme Court size debate influence voter behavior in the November midterms?
- Are there bipartisan alternatives to court expansion being considered, such as term limits or ethics reforms?







