A bipartisan panel of legal scholars examining possible changes to the Supreme Court will vote Tuesday on whether its final report, which describes bipartisan support for imposing term limits but “profound disagreement” about adding justices, should be sent to President Biden for consideration.
Wp Get the full experience.Choose your plan ArrowRight
Biden assembled the commission in response to demands from Democrats to restore what they called ideological “balance” on the court, now with three liberals and six conservatives, including three justices picked by President Donald Trump. The commission released a draft of its report late Monday.
It is not known whether the Biden administration will act on any of the policies detailed in the nearly 300-page report, which does not recommend a certain path to follow, but lays out arguments on either side.
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
When asked about Biden’s plans for responding to the report, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday that the president would review the findings, but there is no definitive timeline for action.
“It’s not recommendations that he either accepts or denies,” Psaki told reporters. “He’ll have to review it first and I don’t think we’re going to set a timeline for what that looks like and what it will mean after that.”
While changing the composition of the court may sound radical, it's actually already been done. (Drea Cornejo, Adriana Usero, Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)
Adding justices or term limits sparks sharp debate on Supreme Court commission
Calls for overhauling the court began after the Republican-controlled Senate blocked President Barack Obama’s nominee in 2016 and found renewed urgency after the Senate rushed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died late last year.
Story continues below advertisement
The Supreme Court’s approval rating among the public has dropped to a new low, prompting some justices to come forward and to defend its independence as they consider highly contentious cases involving gun rights, religious freedom and abortion.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices warned last week in debating Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban that the court’s reputation would be severely damaged if it were to overturn the long-standing constitutional right following a change in the court’s membership.
Gabe Roth, director of Fix the Court, said he never expected the commission to endorse one structural reform proposal over another, but that “it’s clear from the language of the report that the Commissioners, much like the American people, are much more sanguine on term limits than court expansion.”
Story continues below advertisement
“I don’t expect President Biden to endorse any structural reforms after the final report comes out, though I do hope the White House takes a look at the bipartisan proposals out there on judicial ethics, financial disclosure and live-streaming and puts some political capital behind these popular, pro-transparency fixes.”
Advertisement
Liberal lawmakers continue to back legislation that would expand the court’s size, a move Republicans consider court-packing.
Former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, president of the American Constitution Society, said Tuesday that the commission’s report “offers nothing new.”
“We knew and still know the solution to the Court’s legitimacy crisis — meaningful and urgent #SCOTUS reform,” he wrote in a tweet. “Time is of the essence as this Court makes clear it intends to thwart our constitutional rights.”
Story continues below advertisement
Among the proposals the commission considered are term limits for justices, who currently have life tenure and often serve for decades. Until the late 1960s, the average term was 15 years, but has now increased to about 26 years. Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest serving justice, joined the bench 30 years ago.
Advertisement
Proposals include staggered 18-year terms that would ensure all presidents have the opportunity to nominate two justices in each term they serve. The report, which takes no position on the proposal, cites testimony from a group of Supreme Court practitioners who concluded that an 18-year nonrenewable term “warrants serious consideration.”
In political spotlight, Supreme Court embarks on extraordinarily controversial term
Should Congress seek to impose term limits, the commission suggests a constitutional amendment would be the preferred approach rather than a change in statute. The report cautions that any change driven by lawmakers could face a constitutional challenge to be decided by the Supreme Court, raising questions about whether the justices could even review such a case.
Story continues below advertisement
“No matter which way the Court came out on the question, these Commissioners worry that the Court’s legitimacy, or perceptions of its legitimacy, would be undermined,” the report states.
Advertisement
The commission also concludes that Congress has broad authority to increase the number of justices but takes no position on expansion, noting the “profound disagreement among commissioners on this issue.”
In recent months, the court has been criticized for its handling of emergency requests through what has come to be known as the “shadow docket.” The report includes several suggestions for enhancing transparency and says the justices would benefit from “providing insight into its reasoning, reinforcing procedural consistency, and avoiding any possible appearance of arbitrariness or bias.”
The commissioners also agree that the court should adopt an advisory code of conduct that would “demonstrate its dedication to an ethical culture” and continue live-streaming audio of oral arguments, which began during the coronavirus pandemic, so that the public can better follow its work.
Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.