Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the terms of office of the judges of the Supreme Court and inferior courts.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 145
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-02-02T14:42:28Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 145) proposes a constitutional amendment to establish term limits for judges of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, shifting from lifetime appointments to fixed 20-year terms to promote regular turnover in the judiciary.
Key Provisions
- Section 1: Judges of the Supreme Court and inferior (lower) federal courts would be appointed to serve for a single 20-year term, provided they maintain "good behavior" (a standard meaning they must not engage in misconduct that warrants removal).
- Section 2: Individuals who complete a 20-year term cannot be reappointed to the same court, though they could potentially be appointed to a different court.
- Section 3: The amendment would apply only to judges appointed on or after its ratification date, leaving current judges unaffected.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
Under the current U.S. Constitution (Article III), federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, hold their positions for life "during good Behaviour," meaning they serve until death, retirement, or impeachment and removal. This proposal would replace lifetime tenure with mandatory 20-year terms, introducing fixed limits while retaining the good behavior requirement for removal during the term.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The judicial branch would experience more frequent vacancies, requiring the President and Senate to handle appointments more often (approximately every 20 years per seat), potentially increasing administrative workload for the Department of Justice and congressional committees.
- On Citizens: Could lead to a more regularly refreshed judiciary, possibly making court decisions more reflective of evolving societal views, but might also heighten political influences on judicial selections during election cycles.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though a more dynamic U.S. Supreme Court could indirectly affect how international law or treaties are interpreted over time.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Judges and Justices: Current officeholders are exempt, but future appointees face term limits, potentially altering career incentives and retirement planning.
- President and Senate: Gain more frequent appointment opportunities, influencing the balance of power in the judiciary.
- State Legislatures: Must vote on ratification (requiring approval by three-fourths of states) to enact the amendment.
- Citizens and Advocacy Groups: Those involved in legal reform, such as civil rights organizations or bar associations, may support or oppose based on views of judicial independence versus accountability.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional Implications: As a proposed amendment, it would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 38 state legislatures— a high bar that tests the amendment process outlined in Article V. It preserves the "good behavior" clause but challenges the framers' intent for judicial independence to insulate judges from political pressure.
- Legal Implications: Could reduce the risk of long-term entrenchment of judicial ideologies but raise concerns about increased partisanship in appointments, potentially leading to more frequent Supreme Court battles similar to recent nomination controversies.
- Political Implications: May appeal to those seeking to modernize the judiciary amid debates over court composition, but critics might argue it undermines the separation of powers by making judges more accountable to electoral politics rather than law alone. If ratified, it would mark a rare change to Article III since 1789.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2026-01-30: Introduced in House
- 2026-01-30: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the terms of office of the judges of the Supreme Court and inferior courts. — issued 2026-01-30 — PDF (2 pages)