Congress proposes locking Supreme Court at nine justices

What it does

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would lock the Supreme Court's size at nine justices (one chief justice and eight associates). Currently, Congress can change the Court's size by statute; this amendment would require a constitutional amendment to change it again. The bill directly responds to Democratic proposals to expand the Court to 13 justices and would benefit those who oppose Court expansion.

Why we flagged it

The bill's sole function is to propose a constitutional amendment fixing the Supreme Court at nine justices. It is a direct response to court-expansion proposals and operates as a structural constraint on future legislative power, not a substantive policy change.

What the text implies

• Passage would require ratification by 38 state legislatures within seven years; the amendment's fate depends entirely on state-level politics, not federal action.
• If ratified, the amendment would permanently bar Congress from expanding the Court without another constitutional amendment, effectively giving the current nine-justice structure supermajority protection.
• The amendment does not address Court vacancies, retirements, or succession; it only locks the total number, leaving appointment power unchanged.
• Proposing this amendment signals a partisan stance on the Court's ideological composition without explicitly addressing ideology—the real dispute is over whether the current 6-3 conservative majority should be preserved.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The amendment restricts democratic flexibility: it prevents future Congresses from expanding the Court through normal legislation, which some view as protecting judicial independence and others view as entrenching a particular ideological balance. Citizens gain constitutional certainty about Court size but lose the ability to reform it without a supermajority constitutional amendment process.

Named in the bill

Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Biggs (Arizona), Mr. Allen, Mr. Schmidt

Where it stands

2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.

• Jan 3, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 3, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
• Jun 3, 2026 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
• Jun 3, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 8”
• Sep 2, 2026 — Failed · Congress.gov: “Failed of passage/not agreed to in House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the…”
• Sep 2, 2026 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Biggs (AZ) moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.