A Republican effort to permanently fix the Supreme Court at nine justices failed 212-206 in the House, forcing lawmakers to take a recorded position on court expansion as control of Congress hangs in the balance ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A Republican-backed constitutional amendment that would have permanently limited the U.S. Supreme Court to nine justices failed in the House on Wednesday, leaving Congress free to change the size of the nation’s highest court through legislation and putting the politically charged issue before voters ahead of the Nov. 3 midterms.
The measure was defeated 212-206, nowhere near the two-thirds House majority required to advance a constitutional amendment.
Republicans currently hold 218 House seats, while Democrats hold 214, meaning GOP lawmakers could not have reached the constitutional threshold without substantial Democratic support.
Even House passage would have represented only the beginning of an exceptionally difficult amendment process. The proposal would also have required approval by two-thirds of the Senate and subsequent ratification by 38 of the 50 states.
House Republican leaders nevertheless brought the measure to the floor with only a limited number of legislative days remaining before the elections.
The vote placed lawmakers on record over whether Congress should retain its longstanding authority to alter the number of Supreme Court seats, an issue that has become increasingly prominent since President Donald Trump’s appointments established a 6-3 conservative majority.
Republicans argue that permanently fixing the number at nine would prevent a future congressional majority from expanding the court to change its ideological balance.
Democrats have introduced legislation proposing a 13-member Supreme Court and argue that Congress must retain its constitutional authority over the court’s size, particularly during Trump’s presidency.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said before Wednesday’s vote that Republicans wanted to eliminate the possibility of court expansion.
Democrats, “among all the crazy things, is they want to pack the U.S. Supreme Court,” Johnson told reporters Tuesday.
“We’re going to make sure that doesn’t happen,” he said.
The timing also gives Republicans a campaign issue as they fight to preserve narrow House and Senate majorities in November.
So-called messaging votes are regularly used by both parties when controlling the House. Leadership schedules legislation even when passage is unlikely in order to establish party positions, mobilize supporters and force opponents to cast votes on politically contentious questions.
Republicans’ decision to hold the Supreme Court vote shortly before the midterms comes as the party faces concerns that Trump’s low approval ratings could jeopardize congressional control.
Democrats portrayed the amendment as an election-year maneuver by Republicans worried about losing power.
“Surprise, surprise, America. It’s another partisan power grab by MAGA, our colleagues who fear for the results in the November election as their policies have brought us nothing but war, inflation, corruption, lawlessness and a $40 trillion debt,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said during House debate.
The constitutional dispute centers on a number that has remained unchanged for more than 150 years but is not specified anywhere in the Constitution.
Congress determines the number of Supreme Court justices.
Throughout U.S. history, lawmakers have repeatedly altered the court’s membership, reducing it at one point to as few as five seats and expanding it at another to as many as 10.
Nine justices have served on the court since 1869.
One of the most consequential efforts to alter that number occurred during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration.
In 1937, Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six justices after the Supreme Court struck down portions of his New Deal program.
His proposal was widely condemned as an effort to “pack” the court with judges more favorable to his policies and was decisively rejected by Congress.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., invoked that episode while arguing for the Republican amendment Wednesday.
“That was the birth perhaps of the attempt to have an imperial executive,” Biggs said during the House debate. “It wasn’t about building a better courthouse. … It was about changing the composition of the court for ideological purposes.”
The current dispute has intensified because of the court’s ideological composition and a succession of major decisions since 2021.
Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, establishing the current 6-3 conservative majority.
The court has subsequently overturned the nationwide constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights, restricted the regulatory authority of federal agencies and permitted the Republican president to carry out significant portions of his second-term agenda.
Those decisions have fueled Democratic proposals for structural changes to the court.
One Democratic bill would increase the number of justices from nine to 13.
Supporters of expansion argue Congress has historically possessed the authority to determine the court’s size and should not surrender that power through a constitutional amendment.
Republicans contend that allowing future majorities to add seats creates the possibility that whichever party controls Congress could change the court’s composition when dissatisfied with its rulings.
Wednesday’s vote did not alter existing law.
Because the amendment failed, Congress retains the authority it has historically exercised over the number of Supreme Court seats, and nine remains the current statutory size rather than a number permanently fixed in the Constitution.
The defeat also ensures that the dispute over court expansion will continue into the midterm campaign.
With Republicans warning that a Democratic congressional majority could attempt to enlarge the Supreme Court and Democrats insisting Congress should preserve its existing authority, the 212-206 vote has given both parties another issue to carry into a closely contested battle for control of Capitol Hill.
Original article
Comments