Supreme Court Term Limits

Who’s Talking Terms?

Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice

John Roberts

Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence. It would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges. (1983)

Justice

Elena Kagan

Could you do [tenure] with sufficiently long terms - 18 years seems to be the going proposal - maybe. [...] I think that what those proposals are trying to do is to take some of the high stakes out of the confirmation process, and certainly to the extent that that worked, and that people could feel as though no single confirmation was going to be a life or death issue, that that would be a good thing. (2018)

Justice

Stephen Breyer

If there were a long term – 18, 20 years, something like that – I’d say that was fine. In fact, it’d make my life a lot simpler, to tell you the truth. (2016)

Justice

Sandra Day O’Connor

Because it is an unfortunate fact of life that physical and mental capacity sometimes diminish with age, the people may wish to replace some older judges in order to satisfy the legitimate, indeed compelling, public interest in maintaining a judiciary fully capable of performing judges’ demanding tasks. (1991)

Justice

Antonin Scalia

You always wonder whether you’re losing your grip and whether your current opinions are not as good as your old ones. (2013)

Public Officials

Senator (R-FL)

Marco Rubio

I am supporter of term limits on [...] the Supreme Court. (2015)

Senator (D-NJ)

Cory Booker

I think I would like to start exploring a lot of options and we should have a national conversation. Term limits for Supreme Court justices might be one thing, to give every president the ability to choose three, with people holding on to those seats in ways that I don't think is necessarily healthy. (2019)

Senator (D-CA)

Kamala Harris

We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court. We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that. (2019)

Senator (R-KY)

Rand Paul

Maybe we should term limit out-of-control federal judges. (2015)

Former Governor (R-AR)

Mike Huckabee

We need term limits for the judicial branch because nobody ought to wear a black robe for the rest of his or her life and believe that he or she is unaccountable for the decisions that are being made. (2015)

Representative (D-CA)

Ro Khanna

Our founders never envisioned the court to be binding people 30, 40, 50 years after the original appointment. Think about that. People appointed to the Supreme Court today could make decisions 40 or 50 years from now affecting my kids when they’re middle-aged. That was never the intention. […] One easy proposal that would clearly be constitutional would be to limit the term of the court […], to have justices there for 18 years, and after their time on the Supreme Court, have them go on a circuit court and live under the laws and precedents they’ve [set]. (2018)

Senator (D-MA)

Elizabeth Warren

We have a real problem with a Supreme Court that has become increasingly political. There are a lot of different ideas on the table for how to get the politics back out of our court system and make the judiciary truly independent and representative of the people of the United States. I think we’ll be talking about a lot of different approaches over the next several months (2019)

Senator (R-LA)

John Kennedy

I would sure love to have the debate. (2018)

HUD Secretary

Ben Carson

Remember, when [life tenure] was put in place, the average age of death was 47. So it really didn’t matter that much. Now it matters a lot. (2015)

Former HUD Secretary

Julian Castro

I’m intrigued by the idea of term limits. I don’t agree with expanding the size of it, because, you know … we could expect Democrats to increase the size of it to 11 in 2022, and the Republicans will come back and increase the size of it in 2032. You know, I think the more thoughtful approach would be to consider whether there should be term limits. I’m open to that. (2019)

Senator (D-CT)

Richard Blumenthal

The institutional stalwart inside me says no way, but, you know, we’re living in a different world, literally, than the Framers ever envisioned and maybe we need to think about it. (2018)

Former Gov. and former Energy Sec. (R-TX)

Rick Perry

We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of [...] nine oligarchs in robes [...] to rule over us with no accountability. (2011)

Senator (D-CO)

Michael Bennet

It has piqued my mind. We are now in a situation where, at least for the immediate future and maybe forever, we are going to put people on the Court by the barest partisan majority. We will have to have a president and the Senate from the same party [for a nominee to be confirmed]. That is an incredible distortion in our system and it hasn’t been the way it’s worked until now. (2018)

Representative (D-VA)

Gerry Connolly

For most of our history, the court has been a reactionary and unaccountable force in American life. [...] It is time to assert balance and accountability to these nine justices. Term limits and cameras in the court, at least. (2014)

Senator (D-DE)

Chris Coons

One of the real merits of that proposal, in the abstract, is that you could set it up such that every presidency had a certain number of predictable Supreme Court seats. So, look, there is some intellectual appeal to the idea. (2018)

Senator (R-IA)

Chuck Grassley

Lifetime judicial appointments aren’t perfect. (2015)

Senator (R-TX)

Ted Cruz

Sadly, the court’s hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. That calls for meaningful action. (2015)

Nebraska Supreme Court Chief Justice

Mike Heavican

I think it is an unfortunate part of the way that federal judges are appointed and the fact that they have lifetime tenure, so there is absolutely no accountability in the federal system – or I shouldn’t say no – but there’s almost no accountability in the federal system. [...] Nebraska uses a different system, and most states do use different systems. In Nebraska, there’s a lot more accountability to the judicial system. (2019)

Academics

Yale Law School

Stephen Carter

Suddenly everybody wants to explore term limits for Supreme Court justices.. Welcome aboard. I’ve been on that train for almost a quarter of a century. (2018)

Northwestern University

James Lindgren

Except for the state of Rhode Island, no other western jurisdiction has life tenure for high court justices. Term limits would help usher out judges with mental decrepitude and loss of stamina, eliminate strategic retirement for political reasons, reduce animosity in confirmation and return to traditional levels of judicial independence. (2014)

Northwestern University, Federalist Society co-founder

Steven Calabresi

Congress and the states should pass a constitutional amendment imposing an eighteen‐year, staggered term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court justices. (2006)

American Enterprise Institute

Norm Ornstein

Single, 18-year terms would to some degree lower the temperature on [Supreme Court] confirmation battles by making the stakes a bit lower. And it would mean a court that more accurately reflects the changes and judgments of the society. (2014)

Cato Institute

Doug Bandow

Most important, though, how to roll back the judiciary’s role? The issue is not activism per se. To enforce the Constitution judges must be active, but in sustaining, not transforming, the nation’s fundamental law... The best hope for moderating the hostility if not restoring civility is to otherwise reduce the stakes. Establish term limits for justices.

University of Pittsburgh

David Garrow

The history of the court is replete with repeated instances of justices casting decisive votes or otherwise participating actively in the court's work when their colleagues and/or families had serious doubts about their mental capacities. Mental decrepitude has been an even more frequent problem on the 20th century court than it was during the 19th. (2000)

Duke University

Paul Carrington

No one crafting the Constitution in the 18th century was imagining a court exercising political powers, as is done by the 21st century justices. Nor were the Founders imagining that justices would sit for many decades. (2015)

University of California, Irvine

Erwin Chemerinsky

A system of government that allows a handful of men and women to hold great power for such an extended period of time is, by nature, more feudal than democratic. (2015)

George Washington University

Orin Kerr

As you endure the showdown over the Scalia vacancy [...], remember that it was avoidable. The problem is life tenure, and the answer is term limits for Supreme Court justices. (2016)

Columbia University

Jamal Greene

All of the world’s major democratic countries except ours, and each of the 50 states save Rhode Island, have fixed terms, a mandatory retirement age or both for their high court judges. This is not an exceptionalism we should be proud of. There is a name for a political system in which unelected elites hold indefinite power, and it is not democracy. (2016)

Georgia State University

Eric Segall

In light of the crucial role the court plays across the spectrum of social, legal and political issues, the question of how long our justices serve should be reexamined. [...] There simply is no persuasive reason to allow government officials who have virtually unreviewable power to hold offices for life. (2013)

University of Chicago

Harold Pollack

Fixed terms provide no specific advantage to either party, [and] both parties have some stake in fixing problems [with life tenure]. Fixed terms would go a long way toward accommodating the basic realities of human life. [...] There’s less of a risk that a justice will become infirm on the job. (2016)

Yale Law School

Bruce Ackerman

Term limits eliminate the temptation to stack the court with younger and younger justices, thereby extending for decades the impact of the presidents and senators who first got them appointed. A fixed term would instead encourage the selection of mature jurists who have already marked themselves out by decades of distinguished service to their country. (2018)

Yale Law School

Ian Ayres and John Fabian Witt

There are other proposals Democrats ought to consider, too, such as ending the lifetime terms for Supreme Court justices. A statute might designate all future Supreme Court seats as 18-year terms, with justices sitting on the court by designation, followed by life tenure on the lower federal bench... The vagaries of justices’ deaths and retirements should not throw American democracy into tumult. (2018)

Watergate scholar

James Robenalt

Term limits, reconfirmation proceedings every eight years, and age limits — all are viable and rational ideas. (2018)

Johns Hopkins University, New America Foundation

Lee Drutman

“At a time when American institutions seem increasingly fragile, a compromise like term limits for Supreme Court justices would be a much-needed vote for long-term stability. If not, the politics of Supreme Court appointments will only get worse. (2018)

Johns Hopkins University, New America Foundation

Howard Wasserman, FIU Law School

If Republicans keep the Senate in November and Trump remains unpopular, might Thomas retire next year (there were rumors he might go this year)? That would give Trump the same number of SCOTUS appointments in one term as Reagan had in two and more than Obama, Bush II, or Clinton had in two. The 18-year term limits proposals look increasingly sensible. (2018)

Wichita State Law School

Neal Allen

Supreme Court nominations have become a way to preserve a party’s policy positions even after those policies cannot command a majority of voters in national elections. […] It is [senators’] their long-term interest, and the interest of Kansans in general, to reduce the level of partisanship on judicial nominations. (2018)

San Diego Law School

Mike Rappaport

[I]n this hyper-partisan world, where the justices time their retirements to allow a President of their party to replace them, the justices might be reluctant to step down while a President of the opposite party served. […] So what should be done about this? The first step is to recognize that we have a problem. The next is to consider solutions. The best solution, in my view, is to have 18-year terms for the justices, with a new justice to be selected every two years. (2018)

Pundits & Media

New York Times

David Leonhardt

Term limits for the court are an excellent idea...The current system began, obviously, in the 18th century, when both politics and human lifespans were very different. It’s time for a change. (2018)

New York Times

Ross Douthat

The least accountable branch of government, the Supreme Court, has fallen into the hands of an aggressively counter-majoritarian faction. […] Term limits for Supreme Court justices are one obvious example of a neutral reform that might weaken juristocracy. (2018)

FiveThirtyEight Founder

Nate Silver

It would be easier not to politicize someone’s death if they didn’t hold a position with a lifetime appointment. (2016)

Vox Founder

Ezra Klein

We need to deescalate Supreme Court fights. The most obvious way to do that is to limit terms. […] Implementing a reform like this would be a step toward repairing and normalizing a process that is now dangerously broken, infuriatingly random and distorting both our politics and the judges we choose to interpret our laws. (2018)

Syndicated Radio Host

Mark Levin

I am going to reintroduce this argument: term limits for justices. If justices want to be political, then they shouldn’t serve for life. (2012)

New Yorker and CNN Contributor

Jeff Toobin

The Constitution was written at a time when life tenure meant living into your 50s because that's what life expectancy was. Thirty-year tenures are not what the framers had in mind. (2013)

Civil Rights Attorney

Ilann Maazel

The politicized hysteria surrounding Scalia’s replacement was all but inevitable given the court’s immense power, the many decades the justices now sit on the court, the phenomenon of strategic retirement and the increasing polarization of the parties, the court and the country. [...] There is another way: [...] a single, staggered 18-year term. (2016)

Washington Examiner

David Davenport

I am not a fan of term limits, generally. I believe they limit the right of the people to vote for whom they wish. But the people are not voting for Supreme Court justices. Further, in my view, there are not sufficient checks on the power of the Supreme Court so term limits, or even age limits, make more sense. (2018)

South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Randy Schultz

A reform movement has developed among liberal and conservative scholars. Their plan would impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices. Terms would expire every two years, in the odd years of a president’s term. […T]erm limits actually could encourage the selection of older justices. Both parties’ current preferred candidate is someone in his or her 40s or early 50s, to ensure as long a tenure as possible. Neil Gorsuch was 49 when Trump chose him. Kavanaugh is 53. Without a lifetime appointment, youth could matter less than experience. (2018)

Boston Herald

Michael Graham

The theory [on term limits] is that when you have people appointed by, say, President Ford or H.W. Bush, there have been numerous election cycles since then and the philosophy of the people, the will of people, may have been different 30 or 40 years ago; in fact, it probably was. And so the court should reflect, at some level, the thinking of the people, where sovereignty comes from. (2018)

Politics and Elections Lawyer

Bob Bauer

The court is in desperate need of reform; it has become increasingly isolated, imperious and opaque. This is no accident. It follows largely from the assumption, nurtured by the media and embraced by the justices, that they hold “lifetime” appointments. But it is time to rethink this assumption. (2005)