Congress proposes 18-year Supreme Court terms, regular appointments tied to elections

What it does

This bill establishes an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, with one justice appointed every two years (in the first and third years after each presidential election). Current justices retire in order of seniority as new justices are appointed. Retired justices can be called back by the Chief Justice to fill vacancies through a randomized process. The Senate must confirm nominees within 90 days (or 120 days for resubmitted nominations).

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is structural reform of the Supreme Court's appointment and tenure system, replacing lifetime tenure with fixed 18-year terms and a predictable appointment schedule. This is a constitutional-level governance change, not a narrow carve-out or subsidy.

What the text implies

• The randomized recall process for retired justices (Section 3(e)) creates a new category of 'semi-retired' justices available for emergency duty, potentially extending their influence beyond their active term and complicating the independence of the judiciary.
• Tying appointments to presidential election cycles (first and third years after election) means a president elected in year 1 appoints in years 2 and 4, but a president elected in year 5 appoints in years 6 and 8—creating asymmetry in appointment power depending on when a president takes office.
• The 90-day Senate confirmation deadline is aggressive and may pressure the Senate to expedite vetting, potentially reducing deliberation on nominees.
• Current justices retire in seniority order as new justices are appointed, meaning the most senior justice (likely the oldest) retires first—this could accelerate turnover among experienced justices and reduce institutional continuity.
• The bill does not address what happens if a justice dies, becomes disabled, or is disqualified before their 18-year term ends—the retired-justice recall mechanism may not fully resolve vacancies.

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

Who it affects

Citizens gain predictability and democratic accountability through regular appointments tied to election cycles, reducing the randomness of vacancies and the influence of individual justices' health/longevity on the Court's composition. However, the bill also reduces the independence and stability of the judiciary by making justices' tenure dependent on a rigid schedule, potentially pressuring justices to time retirements or creating incentives around appointment cycles. The net effect on judici

Named in the bill

Supreme Court of the United States, President of the United States, United States Senate, Chief Justice, Title 28, United States Code, Section 371 (retirement provisions), Section 294 (senior justices), Section 1 (number of justices)

Where it stands

88 cosponsors: 88 Democrats.

• May 21, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• May 21, 2025 — 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.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $270,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 7 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Hank Johnson, the sponsor, reported $337,917 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law — $180,000 on 3 filings
• People for the American Way — $90,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.