As Democratic strategists and lawmakers plan for the post-midterm landscape in Washington, some within the party are framing Supreme Court reform as a top priority should they regain control of one or both chambers of Congress. The proposals, which range from imposing term limits on justices to potentially expanding the number of seats on the high court, reflect growing frustration among Democrats and many voters over recent Supreme Court decisions.
Proposals on the table
Lawmakers and progressive groups have advanced several distinct ideas that could be pursued if Democrats obtain greater power in Washington:
- Term limits for justices, replacing lifetime appointments with fixed terms.
- An enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, to increase transparency and public trust.
- Adding seats to the bench — sometimes called court expansion — to alter the court’s composition.
- Calls from some activist groups for more radical change, including proposals to abolish the court outright.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters in August that "dramatic Supreme Court reform is necessary" and that a range of options should not be ruled out. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has publicly suggested revisiting the idea of expanding the Court to 13 justices, analogizing the number to the nation’s 13 federal judicial circuits.
Public sentiment and political pushback
Public opinion of the court has declined in recent years, a trend cited by advocates of reform as justification for action in Washington. A July Fox News poll showed the court’s overall favorability at 38%, down from 41% the year before and far below a 58% high in 2017. The same poll found just 17% of Democrats expressing approval of the court.
| Polling figure | Value |
|---|---|
| Court favorability (July) | 38% |
| Court favorability (one year earlier) | 41% |
| Court favorability (2017 high) | 58% |
| Democratic approval (July poll) | 17% |
"The Supreme Court, the conservative right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become, you know, basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in August.
Republican leaders in Washington have pushed back against expansion and other reforms. A recent House vote on a Republican resolution to enshrine a nine-justice bench through a constitutional amendment fell well short of the two-thirds threshold needed for passage, underscoring the political hurdles any significant change would face.
What reform could mean for Washington residents
Any action from Congress to alter the Supreme Court would carry direct and indirect consequences for residents here. The court’s rulings shape federal policy that affects the District — from civil rights and voting access to federal funding and local autonomy. Changes to how justices are appointed or how long they serve could shift the balance on future decisions impacting Washington schools, policing, reproductive rights, and redistricting disputes that ultimately touch local governance.
Moreover, debate in Washington about judicial reform is likely to intensify campaign messaging ahead of the midterms. For voters in the District, who lean heavily Democratic, the issue is both symbolic and practical: many see reform as a response to decisions that have reversed or limited policies long supported by the city’s electorate.
Political road ahead
Several bills already filed in Congress target term limits and ethics rules, while others call for expanding the bench. Whether any of those proposals advance will depend on election outcomes and the balance of power in the House and Senate. Even if Democrats reclaim majorities, substantial legal and political obstacles remain; amending the Constitution to set the size of the Court or guaranteeing specific rules would require broad, bipartisan support that has not yet materialized.
For now, the conversation in Washington is evolving from academic debate to concrete legislative planning, with advocates preparing to push for change and opponents mobilizing to defend the current structure. The stakes for the District — and for the nation — hinge on both the midterm results and the choices lawmakers make in their aftermath.
