Congress proposes forcing sitting Supreme Court justices into retirement

What it does

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment limiting Supreme Court justices to 18-year terms. If ratified, sitting justices with 18+ years of service would be immediately removed from office. The amendment would fundamentally restructure the Court from lifetime tenure to fixed terms, potentially forcing the retirement or removal of multiple current justices.

Why we flagged it

This is a straightforward constitutional amendment proposal with no hidden mechanisms or riders. It plainly states its single purpose: to amend the Constitution to impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices and retroactively apply those limits to sitting justices.

What the text implies

• Retroactive application to sitting justices may trigger immediate vacancies and constitutional crisis if multiple justices exceed 18 years of service, forcing rapid succession of appointments.
• An 18-year term with staggered appointments (roughly two per presidential term) would align Court composition more closely with electoral cycles, potentially increasing politicization of judicial selection.
• The amendment does not specify whether the 18-year clock resets upon ratification or runs from each justice's original appointment date, creating ambiguity about which sitting justices are affected.
• Removal of sitting justices without their consent or impeachment may be challenged as violating the Compensation Clause (Article III, Section 1) and principles of judicial independence, even if the amendment passes.

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

Who it affects

The amendment presents a genuine constitutional trade-off. Supporters argue term limits increase democratic accountability and prevent judicial entrenchment; opponents argue they undermine judicial independence and expose judges to political pressure. Citizens would gain more frequent opportunities to reshape the Court through presidential appointments, but lose the insulation from political cycles that lifetime tenure provides. The retroactive removal of sitting justices raises additional conce

Named in the bill

Supreme Court, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Olszewski, 119th Congress

Where it stands

6 cosponsors: 6 Democrats.

• May 4, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• May 4, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

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