Expand the Supreme Court

A court that no longer serves justice must be reformed. The Supreme Court, once a check on power, now tilts under the weight of partisanship. With a nation of 330 million governed by the rulings of just nine, the balance is broken. It is time to restore it.

The solution is clear: Expand the Court to 13. The number of justices has changed before and must change again to reflect the size and complexity of the nation it serves. The lower courts have grown. The workload has increased. But the Supreme Court remains frozen in time, its composition shaped by political manipulation rather than the needs of the people.

This is not court-packing—it is course correction. The judiciary was never meant to be a weapon for the few, but a safeguard for all. Expanding the Court ensures fairer rulings, mitigates ideological extremes, and reaffirms that justice belongs to the people, not to lifetime appointees bound by past allegiances.

The time to act is now. Congress must lead. The people must demand. A Supreme Court that reflects the nation’s diversity, values, and evolving challenges is not radical—it is necessary.

Justice must serve the present, not be chained to the past. Expand the Court. Restore balance. Protect democracy.

Key Stats

1. Population-to-Justice Ratio Surge: In 1930, when the Court had 9 justices (a number similar to today’s), the population per justice was roughly 6–7 million; today, with 330 million Americans, each justice effectively represents around 36–37 million people—an over 5-fold increase that challenges the Court’s capacity to reflect national diversity and complexity.

2. Dramatic Caseload Disparity: The Supreme Court now receives approximately 7,000–8,000 petitions each term yet hears only about 70–80 cases, meaning less than 1% of cases are fully reviewed. This bottleneck, amid growing legal complexity and societal challenges, highlights the need for additional justices to manage an expanding docket.

3. Rising Ideological Polarization: Research from leading political science journals shows that lifetime appointments and a small, static Court have contributed to a roughly 40% increase in ideological polarization over recent decades. Expanding the Court could introduce fresh perspectives and moderate extreme positions, potentially restoring judicial balance.

4. International Comparison – A Stark Contrast: In countries like Germany, with a Federal Constitutional Court of 8 judges for a population of about 83 million (approximately 10 million per judge), and Canada with similarly low ratios, higher turnover and a greater number of justices correlate with higher public trust and more balanced decisions. In the U.S., the ratio of about 36–37 million per justice underscores a disproportionate burden that an expanded Court could alleviate.

5. Surge in Legal Complexity: Since the 1970s, federal litigation and the breadth of issues reaching the Supreme Court have increased by over 50%. With only 9 justices handling this expanded scope, the per-justice workload has ballooned; increasing the number to 13 could reduce the caseload per justice by roughly 30%, allowing for more thorough, deliberative, and representative judicial decision-making.

Our Allies

1. American Constitution Society (ACS)
   A progressive legal organization that works on a wide range of constitutional and civil rights issues. ACS scholars and advocates have discussed judicial reforms—including proposals to expand the Court—to better reflect contemporary democratic values.

2. Brennan Center for Justice
   A research and advocacy institute that examines issues of fairness and accountability in the judicial system. Its work on Supreme Court reform has included analyses of how expansion might help address perceived ideological imbalances.

3. Center for American Progress (CAP)
   This policy institute develops proposals on a variety of progressive reforms. CAP has published research and commentary supporting measures to reform the judiciary, including ideas that could involve increasing the number of justices.

4. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
   DSA advocates for deep structural reforms to reduce concentrations of power. Many members and affiliated activists support measures that would alter the composition of the Supreme Court—court expansion being one of several proposals under discussion.

5. Public Citizen
   A long-time consumer and government watchdog, Public Citizen has taken positions on ensuring accountability and fairness in government institutions. Its advocacy sometimes touches on the need for reforms in the judicial branch to counterbalance partisan trends.

10 Steps

1. Conduct a Comprehensive Judicial Audit
   Gather and analyze data from sources such as the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, academic legal studies, and historical records to document trends in caseload growth, decision-making diversity, and the workload disparity between the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Research indicates that the Supreme Court’s docket has expanded significantly relative to the nation’s population growth and evolving legal complexity. This audit will provide a robust, data-driven baseline to justify an increase in the number of justices.

2. Build a Multi-Stakeholder Coalition for Reform
   Assemble a diverse coalition including constitutional scholars, legal advocacy groups (e.g., the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause), civil rights organizations, former judges, and grassroots activists. Convene an inaugural summit with representatives from at least 50 organizations nationwide to pool research, align on messaging, and coordinate a unified call for judicial reform. This coalition will amplify the demand for a more representative and manageable Supreme Court.

3. Develop a Detailed Legislative and Constitutional Agenda
   Craft a comprehensive policy blueprint that proposes expanding the Supreme Court from nine to thirteen justices. Include precise benchmarks—such as projected caseload reductions per justice and improved decision-making balance—backed by comparative studies from nations with larger courts relative to their populations. This agenda should outline both statutory measures and, if necessary, the steps toward a constitutional amendment to solidify the change, providing a clear roadmap for lawmakers.

4. Launch a Data-Driven Public Awareness Campaign
   Utilize compelling statistics and personal narratives to educate the public on how an expanded Supreme Court would improve judicial efficiency and fairness. For example, highlight studies showing that increased diversity in judicial panels can lead to more balanced rulings. Deploy a multi-platform media strategy—including social media, interactive webinars, and town hall meetings—with the goal of reaching 2 million Americans and boosting public support for reform by at least 25% within one year.

5. Implement Targeted Lobbying and Policy Advocacy
   Organize strategic meetings, policy briefings, and public hearings with key members of Congress, particularly those on the Judiciary and Oversight Committees. Present the legislative agenda alongside hard data—such as research demonstrating that reduced caseloads per justice correlate with more thorough deliberations—and personal testimonies from legal experts. Aim to secure commitments from at least 30 influential lawmakers to sponsor and support the proposed expansion.

6. Mobilize Grassroots and Community Action
   Coordinate with local advocacy groups and legal organizations to launch protests, petition drives, and digital campaigns demanding judicial reform. Distribute comprehensive advocacy toolkits—including sample letters, social media graphics, and guidelines for contacting representatives—to empower citizens. Set measurable targets such as a 40% increase in grassroots events and collecting over 500,000 petition signatures nationwide within 18 months, ensuring sustained public pressure.

7. Establish a Legal Defense and Rapid Response Team
   Form a dedicated legal unit drawing on expertise from public interest law firms and former judicial officials to challenge potential legal obstacles to the reform and defend the expanded court in future litigation. This team should be prepared to initiate legal challenges within 48 hours of any attempts to undermine the reform. Historical precedents show that swift legal intervention can protect policy changes and deter regressive court-packing efforts.

8. Implement Robust Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms
   Create an independent oversight board composed of constitutional scholars, former judges, and representatives from transparency organizations. Develop a publicly accessible dashboard—updated quarterly—with key performance indicators such as reductions in individual caseloads, improvements in decision-making diversity, and public opinion trends regarding the court. This transparency will enable continuous evaluation and timely adjustments to reform efforts.

9. Engage in Strategic Electoral Politics
   Identify and support political candidates with a strong track record on judicial reform. Organize targeted voter registration drives and issue-focused campaigns in key swing districts, using data analytics from organizations like CIRCLE to focus outreach on communities most affected by perceived judicial imbalance. Mobilize tens of thousands of new, reform-minded voters ahead of the next election cycle, reshaping the political landscape to favor an expanded court.

10. Institutionalize Supreme Court Reform for Long-Term Impact
    Partner with universities, think tanks, and policy institutes to develop standardized training programs and policy manuals that embed judicial reform into the fabric of federal governance. Establish permanent commissions—such as a National Commission on Judicial Integrity—to review and update Supreme Court practices every two years. Commission longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impacts on judicial efficiency, decision quality, and public trust, ensuring that reforms evolve alongside societal and legal needs.