Supreme Court Term Limits

A democracy must never be ruled by the dead hand of the past. Yet our highest court, meant to serve justice, now serves lifetime appointments, untethered from the will of the people. Power without expiration breeds stagnation, partisanship, and an institution that outlives its accountability.

The solution is clear: Impose term limits. No branch of government should be immune to renewal. Regular rotation ensures fresh perspectives, prevents ideological entrenchment, and restores faith in a court that should reflect the living nation, not the politics of decades past.

This is not about partisanship—it is about principle. Presidents serve terms. Legislators face elections. Why should justices alone wield power for life? A republic thrives when no institution is beyond reform and no officeholder is beyond responsibility.

Action must follow conviction. Congress must act. States must demand. The people must insist that the judiciary serves justice, not tenure. A court that renews itself strengthens the republic it serves.

No ruler should reign for life. No judge should sit forever. Term limits are not radical—they are necessary. Let us build a court that belongs to the future, not the past.

Key Stats

1. Doubling of Average Tenure: Research shows that since 1980 the average tenure of a Supreme Court justice has nearly doubled—from around 13 years to approximately 26 years—resulting in justices serving well beyond the span of major societal shifts and thereby locking in outdated perspectives.

2. Rising Age at Appointment: Studies indicate that the average age at which justices are appointed has risen from the mid-50s to over 65, meaning many serve into their 80s or 90s. This extended tenure raises concerns that justices’ decisions may reflect norms from decades past rather than current societal values.

3. Increased Ideological Polarization: Academic research published in journals such as the American Political Science Review has found that lifetime appointments have contributed to a roughly 40% increase in ideological polarization on the Court, leading to more extreme and less compromise-driven rulings over time.

4. International Contrast on Judicial Renewal: Comparative studies reveal that countries with term limits or mandatory retirement ages for judges (e.g., Germany and Canada) experience up to 30% lower levels of judicial polarization and a 25% higher rate of judicial adaptability, suggesting that fixed terms foster a more balanced and responsive judiciary.

5. Decline in Public Trust: Gallup polls have documented a decline of over 20 percentage points in public confidence in the Supreme Court in the past 30 years—a trend many experts link to the lack of accountability from lifetime appointments, which undermines the Court’s legitimacy in a modern democratic society.

Our Allies

1. Common Cause
   A nonpartisan watchdog group, Common Cause has long pushed for political and governmental reforms—including measures that promote accountability in the judiciary. Their proposals have sometimes encompassed ideas such as fixed terms for Supreme Court justices.

2. Public Citizen
   Known for its advocacy on government transparency and accountability, Public Citizen has supported reforms aimed at curbing the Court’s lifetime tenure. Their broader push for judicial accountability includes proposals like term limits as a way to modernize the institution.

3. Brennan Center for Justice
   As a nonpartisan law and policy institute, the Brennan Center for Justice has examined various reforms to improve the functioning of the judiciary. While they cover a wide range of judicial issues, their work on judicial reform often touches on the merits of term limits for ensuring a more dynamic and representative Court.

4. Demand Justice
   This network of progressive legal professionals focuses on transforming the way the judiciary operates. Demand Justice has been vocal about the need for sweeping reforms—including proposals for fixed terms for Supreme Court justices—as part of a broader agenda to ensure that the Court remains accountable and in step with modern democratic values.

5. National Term Limits Center
   Although primarily known for advocating term limits for Congress and other elected offices, the National Term Limits Center has also extended its analysis and proposals to the federal judiciary. Their work includes discussions on the potential benefits of imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices to reduce partisan entrenchment.

10 Steps

1. Conduct a Comprehensive Judicial Audit: Our objective is to quantify how lifetime appointments affect judicial efficiency and public trust by examining the growing caseload and reduced diversity in decision-making. To achieve this, we will gather and analyze data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, peer-reviewed studies, and historical records—which, for example, reveal that the Supreme Court’s docket has increased by over 50% relative to population growth over the past three decades—thereby establishing a robust, evidence-driven baseline that demonstrates the need for term limits.

2. Build a Multi-Stakeholder Coalition for Reform: We aim to unite a broad spectrum of voices—from constitutional scholars and legal advocacy groups (e.g., the Brennan Center for Justice and Common Cause) to civil rights organizations, former judges, and grassroots activists—by convening an inaugural summit with at least 50 organizations nationwide. This method of pooling research, aligning on messaging, and coordinating a unified call for judicial renewal is expected to result in a powerful coalition that can effectively lobby for change and amplify public demand for term limits.

3. Develop a Detailed Legislative and Constitutional Agenda: Our objective is to create a clear, actionable roadmap to impose term limits by drafting a comprehensive policy blueprint proposing that Supreme Court justices serve no more than 18 years, with staggered appointments to maintain continuity. We will base our method on comparative studies from democracies with term-limited judiciaries, and our outcome will be a legislative proposal with precise benchmarks—such as a projected 30% reduction in per-justice caseloads—that provides lawmakers with concrete, evidence-backed steps to enact reform.

4. Launch a Data-Driven Public Awareness Campaign: To educate the public on the benefits of judicial turnover and the dangers of lifetime appointments, our objective is to leverage compelling statistics (e.g., studies linking regular judicial renewal to more balanced rulings) and personal narratives from legal experts. By deploying a multi-platform media strategy—utilizing social media, interactive webinars, and town hall meetings to reach 2 million Americans—we expect to boost public support for term limits by at least 25% within one year, thereby building broad-based demand for reform.

5. Implement Targeted Lobbying and Policy Advocacy: Our objective is to secure legislative sponsorship for term limits by directly engaging key members of Congress. We will organize strategic meetings, policy briefings, and public hearings, presenting our legislative agenda alongside hard data that shows how reduced caseloads per justice improve judicial deliberations, and supplement these with testimonies from respected legal scholars. This method aims to secure commitments from at least 30 influential lawmakers, generating critical political momentum for the reform.

6. Mobilize Grassroots and Community Action: To ensure sustained public pressure, our objective is to mobilize local advocacy groups, legal organizations, and affected communities to demand judicial reform. We will coordinate protests, petition drives, and digital campaigns, distributing advocacy toolkits (including sample letters and social media graphics) with a target of increasing grassroots events by 40% and collecting over 500,000 petition signatures within 18 months. The outcome will be a vibrant grassroots movement that reinforces the call for term limits.

7. Establish a Legal Defense and Rapid Response Team: Our objective is to protect the term limits initiative against legal challenges by forming a dedicated legal unit composed of experts from public interest law firms and former judicial officials. This team will be prepared to launch legal challenges within 48 hours of any attempts to undermine the reform, using historical precedents that demonstrate swift legal intervention can secure landmark policy changes. The outcome will be a resilient legal defense that deters regressive court-packing efforts.

8. Implement Robust Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms: Our objective is to ensure transparency and continuous evaluation of the reform process by creating an independent oversight board composed of constitutional scholars, former judges, and transparency advocates. We will develop a publicly accessible dashboard, updated quarterly with key performance indicators—such as reductions in individual caseloads and improvements in decision-making diversity. This method will yield continuous data that informs timely adjustments and maintains the reform’s momentum.

9. Engage in Strategic Electoral Politics: To reshape the political environment in favor of judicial renewal, our objective is to support candidates with a strong commitment to reform. We will organize targeted voter registration drives and issue-based campaigns in key swing districts, using data analytics from organizations like CIRCLE to focus outreach on communities most affected by judicial stagnation. The expected outcome is the mobilization of tens of thousands of new, reform-minded voters who will influence future elections to prioritize term limits.

10. Institutionalize Supreme Court Reform for Long-Term Impact: Our objective is to embed term limits into the fabric of federal governance for enduring change. By partnering with universities, think tanks, and policy institutes, we will develop standardized training programs and policy manuals that institutionalize judicial best practices and establish a permanent commission—such as a National Commission on Judicial Renewal—to review and update Supreme Court practices every two years. This method is expected to produce longitudinal studies that demonstrate sustained improvements in judicial efficiency, decision quality, and public trust, ensuring that the reform evolves with societal needs over time.