Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.
Summary
HJR 28 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to be composed of nine justices. The resolution does not change the number of justices by ordinary statute; instead, it seeks to add a new article to the Constitution stating that the Supreme Court “shall be composed of nine justices.” If adopted by Congress and ratified by the states, the amendment would make the nine-justice structure constitutionally fixed.
The resolution also includes the standard amendment ratification language, providing that the proposal would become part of the Constitution only if approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years of submission. As introduced, it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and has no recorded committee action, hearing, or vote in the materials provided.
Impact
If enacted, the proposal would alter the constitutional structure of the federal judiciary by permanently fixing the Supreme Court at nine justices, limiting Congress’s ability to change the Court’s size through ordinary legislation. It would affect Article III-related institutional design and would supersede any future statutory effort to expand or reduce the Court’s membership unless another constitutional amendment were adopted. The bill does not directly amend any existing federal statute, but it would have broad implications for judicial appointments, confirmation politics, and the balance of power among the branches.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the resolution appears to reflect support among its Republican cosponsors for preserving the traditional nine-justice Court. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials showing opposition or support beyond the introduction itself. The overall tone of the measure is formal and structural rather than policy-specific, indicating an effort to lock in the current Court size through constitutional means.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the use of a constitutional amendment to fix the Court’s size, rather than leaving that question to Congress by statute. Supporters may view the measure as a safeguard against court-packing or future partisan changes to the Court’s membership, while critics may argue that it unnecessarily constrains Congress and elevates a political dispute into the Constitution. No specific objections or amendments are recorded in the provided materials, and no votes or hearing testimony are available to identify named opponents.
Same As
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.
A joint resolution urging the United States Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require the Supreme Court of the United States to be composed of nine justices.
A joint resolution urging the United States Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require the Supreme Court of the United States to be composed of nine justices.
A resolution urging the United States Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require the Supreme Court of the United States to be composed of nine justices.
Applying to the United States Congress under Article V of the United States Constitution to call for a convention proposing an amendment to the constitution fixing the number of justices of the United States Supreme Court at one chief justice and eight associate justices.