The reform has broad, bipartisan support.

([link removed])

This week, I’m turning The Briefing over to my colleague Alicia Bannon, coauthor of a report out today

([link removed])

calling for term limits and other major structural reforms to how the Supreme Court works. Term limits are broadly popular. They reflect the idea that nobody should have too much public power for too long. But how can they be implemented? In this important publication, we offer a detailed plan.

—Michael Waldman

We’re in the final weeks of the Supreme Court’s term, waiting for rulings on affirmative action, LGBTQ+ rights, student loan forgiveness, and more. Alexander Hamilton wrote that the courts were the “least dangerous” branch of government. Not anymore. It’s hard to overstate the Supreme Court’s power and impact — or the damage done by its now-ensconced conservative supermajority.

As the Court has grown more powerful, so have individual justices, who now serve more than a decade longer on average than they used to. Some are likely to stay on the bench for as long as 35 years — covering nine presidential terms. All the while, they are shaping policies and laws that can endure for generations.

This is no way to run a democracy. A new Brennan Center report

([link removed])

, which I wrote with my colleague Michael Milov-Cordoba, outlines a solution to restore balance and accountability to our nation’s highest court: adopting 18-year terms and regularized appointments for Supreme Court justices.

Here’s how this would work: After an 18-year active phase, justices would shift to a senior phase for the rest of their time on the bench. During the active phase, justices would decide cases on the Court’s docket as they do now. As senior justices, they would hear cases on the lower federal courts, assist with judicial administration, and step in to hear Supreme Court cases when the Court is short-staffed due to a recusal or unexpected vacancy.

A similar senior judge framework has been in place for more than a century in the lower federal courts and was applied to the justices in 1937. Under this reform, Congress would set the schedule for justices assuming senior status rather than letting them choose their own timing. Job security and salaries would remain protected regardless of how the justices rule in particular cases, as required by the Constitution, preserving judicial independence.

We think another element also makes sense: regular appointments. With staggered terms, a new vacancy would open on the Court every two years. That way, each president would nominate two justices per four-year term, putting an end to the inequality and unpredictability of the current system. Trump appointed three justices in his single term, while Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton named two over two terms — and Jimmy Carter appointed none. Presidents shouldn’t have such disparate imprints on the Court. Regular appointments would likely mean a Court that is better attuned to, and reflective of, a changing country.

What’s more, Supreme Court term limits are popular! Support for term limits is remarkably high and transcends party lines. More than two-thirds of Americans, including over half of Republicans, favor limiting justices’ terms.

This could be achieved by constitutional amendment. But that’s not required to adopt this reform. As we explain in the report, term limits can be implemented by statute as long as the justices retain their judicial office after their 18-year term, which is what the senior justice system provides. Congress has broad authority to shape the Supreme Court’s structure and the justices’ duties. And lawmakers have used that power repeatedly over our nation’s history, including to change the size and jurisdiction of the Court, to provide for reduced duties for justices who retire from active service, and to require justices to sit on lower courts.

Term limits and regularized appointments are only part of the solution. Among other things, the Court’s cascading ethics scandals make clear that we need a binding code of conduct and other ethics reforms as well. But these changes to how justices reach the Court and hear cases would be a transformative step to solidify the link between the Court and the will of the people.





Voting Laws in the States

The latest edition of the Brennan Center’s Voting Laws Roundup finds that this year, at least 11 states have passed laws restricting the vote, while 13 have enacted laws expanding access. It highlights dangerous trends in voting legislation, including measures targeting direct democracy and criminalizing election-related activities. Simultaneously, a pro-democracy movement is pushing for legislation to protect election workers from increased threats. Read more

([link removed])

Iowa Court Challenges Constitutional Remedies

A recent Iowa Supreme Court decision prevents Iowans from suing for money damages when government officials violate their rights. Overturning a decision it issued just six years ago, the high court aligned itself with the U.S. Supreme Court’s growing skepticism of money damage remedies in cases of constitutional rights violations. Law professor Marcus Gadson writes in State Court Report that the ruling suggests “state court precedents might be even more vulnerable than comparable federal precedents.” READ MORE

([link removed])

Unexpected Multiracialism in White Supremacist Groups

Recent events have brought attention to the perplexing phenomenon of Latinos participating in white supremacist groups despite being targets of racist hatred themselves. Former FBI agent Michael German, who went undercover to infiltrate white supremacist groups, sheds light on the factors driving Latinos to join these far-right movements and talks about what the government must do to properly confront domestic terrorist threats. Read more

([link removed])

Damage from Shelby County v. Holder a Decade Later

This Sunday marks 10 years since the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County v. Holder effectively ended the requirement for jurisdictions with a history of racial voter discrimination to get federal approval for changes to their voting rules. Kareem Crayton details the lasting impact and why there is still reason to be hopeful in the fight for the right to vote. READ MORE

([link removed])





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT TOMORROW: The Supermajority

([link removed])

Wednesday, June 21, 1–2 p.m. ET



Today's Supreme Court is the most extreme in decades. Join us for a virtual event with Michael Waldman, author of The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America

([link removed])

, and Kareem Crayton, along with moderator Troy McKenzie, dean of NYU Law. They will discuss the threat the current Court poses and what must be done to shore up democracy. RSVP today

([link removed])

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

([link removed])





News

Yurij Rudensky on the impact of the Supreme Court’s Alabama redistricting decision on voting maps in 2024 // MOTHER JONES

([link removed])

Joanna Zdanys on harmful changes to New York’s public campaign financing program // TIMES UNION

([link removed])

Michael Waldman on reforming the Supreme Court // CNN

([link removed])

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

[email protected]



([link removed])

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]


Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])

([link removed])