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.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 28
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-22: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-16T14:55:03Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 28) proposes a constitutional amendment to establish a fixed number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, aiming to provide long-term stability to the composition of the nation's highest court.
Key Provisions
- The resolution proposes adding a new article to the U.S. Constitution stating: "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices."
- It follows the standard process for constitutional amendments: passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures within seven years of submission.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Under current law (set by statute in 28 U.S.C. § 1), the Supreme Court has nine justices, but Congress has the authority to change this number through legislation.
- This amendment would shift the requirement from statutory law to the Constitution itself, making it much harder to alter without another amendment. It codifies the existing nine-justice structure permanently.
Potential Impacts
- On government agencies: Minimal direct impact, but it would limit Congress's flexibility to adjust the court's size in response to future political or judicial needs, potentially affecting the balance of power between branches of government.
- On citizens: Could enhance predictability in the judicial system by preventing sudden expansions or reductions in the court, which might influence how long-term legal precedents (e.g., on rights or regulations) are interpreted. No immediate effects on daily life.
- On international relations: Negligible, as the amendment focuses on domestic judicial structure and does not address foreign policy or treaties.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Supreme Court justices: Directly impacts their number and tenure stability, as the court would be locked at nine members.
- Congress: Loses unilateral power to modify the court's size, requiring a constitutional amendment for any future changes.
- State governments: Play a key role in ratification; successful passage would bind all states to the nine-justice rule.
- The public and advocacy groups: Indirectly affected through the court's role in deciding national issues like civil rights, elections, and regulations; groups favoring or opposing court expansion/reform would see their influence limited.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal/Constitutional: Reinforces the separation of powers by embedding judicial structure in the Constitution, reducing Congress's legislative influence over the judiciary. If ratified, it would be the first explicit constitutional limit on the Supreme Court's size since the Judiciary Act of 1789. The seven-year ratification window adds urgency but aligns with historical amendment timelines (e.g., the 27th Amendment took over 200 years).
- Political: Introduced by a large bipartisan group of House Republicans, it signals efforts to prevent "court-packing" (adding justices for political gain), a debated tactic in U.S. history. Success would require broad consensus, highlighting divisions over judicial independence versus legislative control. Failure to ratify would maintain the status quo without constitutional entrenchment.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
Cosponsors (108)
Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11], Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3], Rep. Estes, Ron [R-KS-4], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9], Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12], Rep. Dunn, Neal P. [R-FL-2], Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5], Rep. Rose, John W. [R-TN-6], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24], Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4], Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10], Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA-8], Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3], Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2], Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1], Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7], Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-1], Rep. Yakym, Rudy [R-IN-2], Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2], Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7], Rep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-5], Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1], Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16], Rep. Letlow, Julia [R-LA-5], Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15], Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11], Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9], Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7], Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5], Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13], Rep. Mann, Tracey [R-KS-1], Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48], Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27], Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1], Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10], Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4], Rep. De La Cruz, Monica [R-TX-15], Rep. Timmons, William R. [R-SC-4], Rep. Alford, Mark [R-MO-4] and 58 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-22: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-01-22: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-22: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- 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. — issued 2025-01-22 — PDF (2 pages)