Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.

Bill Number

H.J.Res. 174

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Law

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-05-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-05-27T08:06:11Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 174) proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the time Supreme Court justices can serve in office, replacing their current lifetime appointments with fixed term limits.

Key Provisions

• Supreme Court justices' tenure in office cannot exceed 18 years.
• For justices serving at the time of ratification:
• If they have already served 18 years or more, their term ends immediately.
• If the affected justice is the Chief Justice, the position is filled according to existing laws.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Current U.S. Constitution (Article III) allows federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to serve for life "during good Behaviour," meaning they hold office until they resign, retire, or are impeached.
• This amendment would end lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, introducing mandatory 18-year limits and immediate termination for long-serving justices upon ratification.

Potential Impacts

• Government agencies/Judiciary: Would lead to regular turnover on the Supreme Court, requiring more frequent presidential nominations and Senate confirmations (about one new justice every two years).
• Citizens: Could result in a court more reflective of recent presidential administrations and public views over time, potentially increasing accountability but reducing continuity.
• International relations: No direct impact mentioned or implied.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Supreme Court justices: Current and future justices face term limits, with some potentially losing their positions upon ratification.
• Presidents and Congress: Presidents would nominate more justices; Senate would confirm them more often.
• State legislatures: Must ratify the amendment (requiring three-fourths of states) for it to take effect.
• American public: Indirectly affected through changes in the composition and perceived stability of the highest court.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Constitutional process: Requires two-thirds approval in both House and Senate, then ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures— a high bar rarely met for amendments.
• Legal: Challenges traditional judicial independence by limiting lifetime service, potentially affecting how justices decide cases without fear of reappointment.
• Political: Could reduce long-term ideological dominance by any single court era but might lead to partisan battles over frequent appointments; applies retroactively to sitting justices, raising fairness questions.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2]

Cosponsors (5)

Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7], Rep. Liccardo, Sam T. [D-CA-16], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13]

Recent Actions

• 2026-05-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2026-05-04: Introduced in House
• 2026-05-04: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court. — issued 2026-05-04 — PDF (2 pages)