Congress moves to lock in Supreme Court appointments every two years

What it does

This bill would restructure the Supreme Court by requiring the President to appoint one new justice every two years (in the first and third years of each presidential term), with Senate confirmation. It would expand the Court to at least 9 justices and allow it to grow beyond that, but only the 9 most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases—older justices could continue in senior status hearing only original jurisdiction cases. The bill creates a predictable appointment schedule that would give each President two guaranteed appointments per term.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a mandatory biennial appointment schedule that would systematically expand and reshape the Supreme Court's composition. While framed as procedural reform, it is fundamentally a structural reallocation of power from the judiciary to the executive and legislative branches.

What the text implies

• The bill creates a 'senior justice' tier (justices beyond the 9 most recent) who retain office but are excluded from appellate jurisdiction—a novel constitutional status that may invite litigation over judicial independence and the meaning of 'good behavior' tenure.
• By guaranteeing two appointments per presidential term, the bill locks in partisan appointment cycles, potentially accelerating ideological swings and reducing the stabilizing effect of unexpected vacancies or retirements.

The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.

Who it affects

The bill creates a transparent, predictable appointment process that could reduce vacancy-driven crises and give citizens clearer expectations about Court composition. However, it fundamentally restructures a co-equal branch of government through a unilateral legislative power grab, potentially undermining judicial independence and the separation of powers—a structural cost to democratic accountability that outweighs procedural clarity.