Can Congress Impose Term Limits on Supreme Court Justices through Constitutional Amendment?

The United States Constitution has established that Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour and shall at stated Times receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” This implies that any changes to their tenure requirements would necessitate amending the Constitution. The amendment process, as specified in Article 5, involves ensuring a 2/3 supermajority in both chambers of Congress and gaining the assent of 3/4 of the states. Considering the hurdles in this process, it is safe to say that imposing term limits on Supreme Court Justices is currently an impractical endeavor.

The Current System

Under the current system, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, provided they behave well and their compensation is not diminished during their service. This ensures that Justices are insulated from political pressures and can make decisions based on their interpretations of the law rather than seeking re-election. Occasionally, a President may have the opportunity to nominate a larger number of Justices than usual, which can lead to controversies or changes in the ideological balance of the Court. However, implementing term limits would necessitate a constitutional amendment, a process fraught with complexity and political challenges.

Why Term Limits Are Not Pragmatic

Even if term limits were implemented, they could have significant consequences for the balance of power between the branches of government. For instance, if term limits were imposed to ensure that each President could reliably nominate a few Justices, it could skew the balance of power towards the Executive branch. Presidents would have more control over the composition of the Court, potentially undermining the checks and balances established by the Constitution. Additionally, lower court judges with aspirations to the Supreme Court may alter their rulings to appeal to presidential candidates, hoping to secure spots on the Court.

The Feasibility of Term Limits

Removing term limits for anyone who holds a federal elected office seems like a more practical approach. Allowing the populace to limit how long individuals serve in certain elected positions can lead to a more diverse pool of nominees and confirmations. Limiting the number of terms one can hold in federal office would likely result in fewer career politicians and more genuine Americans being considered for Supreme Court positions. This would foster a more democratic and representative process.

Current Duration of Service

On average, a Supreme Court Justice serves for about 16 years. With nine Justices, you would need to rotate one out every year and nine months to approximately balance the Court's composition. However, rotating one justice every 18 months would result in each Justice serving for about 13.5 years, providing each President the opportunity to nominate two to three Justices. In electoral years, however, this rotation becomes problematic. The Senate is usually controlled by the opposition during presidential election years, leading to paralysis in the confirmation process. This means that the next President would likely get more than their fair share of nominations, leading to an overly complex and inefficient system.

Conclusion

While it is theoretically possible for Congress to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices through a constitutional amendment, the practicality and necessity of such a move are questionable. The current system, despite its inherent imperfections, provides a balance and insulation for the Court. A more realistic approach would be to focus on limiting the number of terms one can hold in federal elected offices to ensure a more representative and dynamic judiciary.