Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.
Summary
H.J. Res. 174 proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years. Under the proposed amendment, no justice could serve more than 18 years in office, and any sitting justice whose tenure is already 18 years or longer at the time of ratification would have that term ended. If the justice affected is the Chief Justice, the vacancy would be filled according to existing law.
Because this is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it would not change federal law by itself. Instead, it would begin the process of amending the U.S. Constitution, which would require approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. If adopted, it would alter the structure and tenure of the Supreme Court and affect future appointments, judicial succession, and the length of service for current and future justices.
Impact
The resolution would create a new constitutional rule limiting Supreme Court justices to 18-year terms, superseding the current lifetime tenure structure established under Article III. It would affect the judiciary, presidential appointment power, and the timing of Supreme Court vacancies, and it could immediately terminate the service of any sitting justice with 18 or more years of tenure upon ratification. As a proposed amendment, it does not amend state statutes directly, but it would require state legislatures to ratify the change before it becomes part of the Constitution.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support in the provided materials. The bill’s introduction and referral to the House Judiciary Committee suggest it is at an early stage. In general, proposals for Supreme Court term limits tend to draw interest from reform advocates but also scrutiny from those concerned about judicial independence and constitutional tradition.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether term limits for Supreme Court justices would improve accountability and reduce the stakes of individual appointments, or instead undermine judicial independence and the Court’s insulation from political pressure. Supporters would generally favor regular turnover and a more predictable appointment cycle, while opponents would likely object that lifetime tenure is a constitutional safeguard and that changing it could politicize the Court. No specific member positions or recorded objections are provided in the available materials.