Biden’s proposal reflects broad, bipartisan support for Supreme Court reform. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

Supreme Court reform is an issue whose time has come.

In 2021, President Biden appointed me to serve as a member of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. We were publicly instructed at the outset not to reach conclusions — and we didn’t! (At last, a government agency that works.)

We heard from dozens of public witnesses — 17 on day one alone. They disagreed about many things. But one after another, conservatives and progressives alike said almost offhandedly that of course they supported term limits. It reflected a nascent national consensus.

Still, our report received little more than a terse White House acknowledgment. That makes Biden’s eloquent embrace of reform all the more striking. In a Washington Post op-ed, he declared

[link removed]

, “What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.”

What changed? The Supreme Court has vast power and minimal accountability. Public trust has plunged to the lowest level ever recorded. The Court is mired in corruption controversies. And the Trump v. United States ruling giving presidents broad immunity will sanction executive lawbreaking on an unprecedented scale.

Biden backed 18-year term limits for justices, with a regular appointment every two years. He called for binding ethics rules for justices to replace the toothless ethics code the Court hastily posted online last year. And he supported a constitutional amendment to undo the appalling immunity decision.

In many ways, these are conservative ideas. Term limits rest on a foundational premise of accountability: nobody should hold too much public power for too long. George Washington taught us that when he stepped down after two terms. A binding ethics code confirms that nobody is so wise that they can be the judge in their own case. And the constitutional amendment would restore the understanding that held for two centuries: presidents are not kings, and nobody is above the law. This compelling package would save the Court from itself.

Reform will now be a central public issue going forward. Vice President Harris, running to succeed Biden, endorsed the push. Nobody pretends the changes will happen this year. But if the political stars align after the November election, as Politico reports

[link removed]

, things could change fast.

Not surprisingly, the new call for reform has drawn fire. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal called it “political

[link removed]

.” Today they called it “radical.” Who knows what they will call it tomorrow?

In fact, a broad and growing public consensus supports term limits. Few policy ideas have such durable bipartisan appeal. According to a recent poll by Fox News

[link removed]

, 78 percent of Americans support the idea, up from 66 percent in 2022. A few years ago, the National Constitution Center convened progressive and conservative scholars to put forward dueling ideas for Court reform. Both groups embraced term limits.

So did John Roberts

[link removed]

. While working as a White House attorney, he wrote that term limits “would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence” and “would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges. Both developments would, in my view, be healthy ones.” Indeed, the idea was first pushed in 2002

[link removed]

by Federalist Society cofounder Steven Calabresi in an article with liberal constitutional law scholar Akhil Reed Amar.

Now, nobody is under any illusion that bipartisan public support will cause partisan division to melt away in Congress. But if the public’s support is strong enough, the political system can be prodded to respond.

One critic, a fellow commission member, warns this is merely a repackaging

[link removed]

of dreaded “court packing.” The Journal editorialists call it “court smacking

[link removed]

.” But that dad joke inadvertently reveals the truth. This idea is not a retaliatory expansion of the Court designed simply to outvote conservatives, which might in turn be followed by a further expansion to overwhelm the liberals and so on. It is a principled way to bring the Court into line with a changing country. It would also align the Court with the practice of supreme courts in all but one state, for example.

Term limits can be enacted by constitutional amendment, to be sure, and they also can be enacted by statute. As another fellow commission member, constitutional law scholar Kermit Roosevelt III, explains

[link removed]

in Time, Congress has the power to create senior judgeships with different and limited responsibilities, and courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld that

[link removed]

. One version of the proposal would apply the idea to sitting justices. As Roosevelt writes, “David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer are all still Supreme Court Justices, even though they are retired. None of them has left their office.” Another would apply only to new justices while giving the president the power to make an appointment every two years. Details remain to be worked out (including whether current or only future justices would be covered).

Some say all this will politicize the Court. Consider me shocked, shocked that there is politics around Supreme Court nominations. We all know how intense, poisonous, and partisan nomination battles have become. Justices now routinely squeak by on a party-line vote

[link removed]

. The legendary New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse put it well

[link removed]

: “With the accuracy of a drone strike, the three justices appointed by President Donald Trump and strong-armed through to confirmation by Mitch McConnell, then the majority leader, are doing exactly what they were sent to the court to do.”

Term limits and regular appointments would help drain the toxicity of the confirmation process. Each nomination would matter less. If candidates felt it necessary to hint at whom they would appoint in advance, so what? Trump announced that he would only appoint justices from a list given to him by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. (Yes, the same Heritage Foundation, publisher of the notorious Project 2025, that Trump now claims never to have heard of.)

Above all, this makes the issue of Supreme Court reform a central topic going forward. The Court and its role have been central political topics many times. Outrage at Dred Scott lifted Abraham Lincoln and the new Republican Party into the White House. Theodore Roosevelt campaigned against reactionary rulings and urged reform in his 1912 run. Conservatives from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump vowed to change the Court.

In short, this is not a distraction from urgent political debates, as some argue

[link removed]

. Voters will cast ballots this year in large measure driven by their views of rulings such as Dobbs, which reversed the Constitution’s guarantee of reproductive freedom. Candidates will make pledges about what kind of justice they would appoint, as they should. But reform of a corrupted and unaccountable public institution should be part of the debate as well. As it has been at every moment of peril and progress for American democracy, in 2024 the Supreme Court will be on the ballot.





Police Surveillance of Political Activity

Internal documents obtained through a public records request by the Brennan Center reveal that the Atlanta Police Department surveilled critics of a police training facility known by activists as Cop City. While social media monitoring can help police allocate their resources for public safety purposes, the APD seemed more concerned with keeping tabs on people it viewed as political opponents, with law enforcement collecting posts about community pizza nights and study groups that weren’t tied to any credible threats. “Targeting people for such First Amendment–protected activity can chill freedom of speech. And in this case, it supported questionable, politicized criminal indictments,” Spencer Reynolds and José Guillermo Gutiérrez write. Read more

[link removed]

Can Harris Use Biden’s Campaign Funds?

President Biden’s decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential race has prompted questions about Vice President Harris’s ability to use their joint campaign funds for her presidential bid. According to most campaign finance experts and regulatory precedent, the answer is yes, but former President Trump and conservative groups have challenged the move. “There is no small amount of irony in the fact that some of the loudest voices crying foul in this matter are those who have been at the forefront of successful efforts to weaken the very rules they accuse the Harris campaign of breaking,” Daniel Weiner writes. READ MORE

[link removed]

Congress Can Clean Up SCOTUS’s Immunity Mess

Congress has the power — and the responsibility — to limit the damage that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling may cause. The conservative supermajority shielded presidents from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” but lawmakers can now define the powers that fall under that category to leave less room for lawless action. “To meet the moment, lawmakers will need to reclaim Congress’ role as a check on the presidency and rebalance the power between the two branches,” Elizabeth Goitein writes in Slate. Read more

[link removed]

What Happens Next in Trump’s Florida Documents Case?

Earlier this month in Florida, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case against Trump for mishandling classified documents, saying that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. Brennan Center Senior Fellow Joyce Vance explains the unprecedented ruling, its alarming repercussions, and the potential outcomes of the appeals process. “This decision was a bad one, and if the higher courts permit it to stand, it will do further damage to public confidence in the courts,” she writes. Read more

[link removed]

Can Trump Vote After His Conviction?

After Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a crime, many wondered whether the Florida resident would be barred from voting in the fall because of the state’s harsh felony disenfranchisement law, which denies voting rights to more than 1 million people. In a new explainer, Patrick Berry walks through the various factors that will dictate Trump’s eligibility to vote, such as the outcome of his pending sentencing and prosecutions and the likelihood of Florida officials granting him clemency. “The difficulty of determining Trump’s voter eligibility shows how complicated it can be for any Florida resident to understand their own,” Berry writes. READ MORE

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: The Data Behind Bail Reform

[link removed]

Thursday, August 15, 3–4 p.m. ET



Cities, counties, and states across the nation have curbed the use of money bail. Reformers say that jailing criminal defendants who can’t afford to buy their pretrial freedom punishes poverty and doesn’t make anyone safer. Opponents, however, blamed higher crime during the pandemic on bail reform and pushed to roll back changes.



Join us for a live virtual event in which Brennan Center experts will compare crime rates in cities that enacted bail reform with those that did not. In the broadest and most comprehensive study of this issue to date, they found no evidence that limiting bail and pretrial detention increased crime. Ultimately, there are more promising ways to lower crime than to attack and weaken bail reform. RSVP today

[link removed]

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

[link removed]





News

Veronica Degraffenreid on the mechanics of changing presidential candidates on ballots // WITF

[link removed]

Andrew Garber on the security of mail voting // USA TODAY

[link removed]

Lawrence Norden on threats against election officials // ABC NEWS

[link removed]

Daniel Weiner on campaign fundraising in the 2024 election // BLOOMBERG TV

[link removed]

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

mailto:[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]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[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]

[link removed]