Following the midterm elections, Democrats are preparing to revisit legislative proposals to reform the Supreme Court, buoyed by projected majorities in both the House and Senate. With Democrats expected to hold at least 250 seats in the House and between 54 and 56 seats in the Senate, the party has the numerical strength to advance measures that previously stalled under Republican leadership. The renewed focus on the judiciary comes after years of high-profile rulings by the court's conservative majority on issues including abortion, voting rights, and presidential power.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, anticipated to be elected Speaker in January, has signaled that judicial reform is a priority for the incoming Congress. In a letter to his colleagues announcing his bid for the speakership, Jeffries wrote, "We must root out corrupt price gouging, clean up the mess at the Supreme Court and ban Members of Congress from trading stocks. Accountability begins at home." Jeffries stated on NBC's "Meet the Press" in August that "dramatic" reform is needed and indicated that Rep. Jamie Raskin, likely to chair the House Judiciary Committee, would lead these efforts.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive Democrats argue that the Supreme Court has lost public confidence due to a lack of enforceable ethics standards and the perception of partisan bias. The push for reform is driven by specific incidents, such as ProPublica's 2023 reporting on Justice Clarence Thomas's undisclosed travel with a wealthy Republican donor, which sparked bipartisan interest in accountability measures. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has reintroduced legislation requiring the court to adopt a binding code of conduct and establish procedures for handling misconduct complaints, arguing that self-regulation has failed.
Additionally, Democrats point to controversies in lower federal courts as evidence that the entire judiciary needs stricter oversight. Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, noted that while the Supreme Court receives the most attention, issues with lower-court judges—including allegations of mistreatment of clerks and improper recusals—warrant a broader anticorruption push. Democrats such as Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., have proposed creating independent offices for ethics and investigative counsel to ensure that complaints against justices are reviewed impartially.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative critics have historically viewed Democratic reform efforts as politically motivated attempts to dilute the influence of judicial appointees who interpret the Constitution strictly. The Republican response to previous ethics bills, such as those introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee, involved skepticism about congressional authority to impose operational rules on the independent judiciary. Although the source material does not detail specific Republican quotes on the current post-election landscape, the political dynamic suggests that GOP opposition will likely focus on the constitutional principle of judicial independence and the potential for partisan abuse of new oversight mechanisms.
Notably, some structural reform ideas have found limited bipartisan support in the past, such as term limits. Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Mich., previously introduced a constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court and lower court terms to 20 years, a concept that aligns with some Democratic proposals for 18-year terms. However, Barrett lost his seat in the midterms, and the broader Republican platform has generally resisted changes to the court's size or tenure, viewing the current structure as a stable feature of American governance.
What the Numbers Show
The legislative path for reform is constrained by procedural and political realities. While Democrats are projected to hold a simple majority in the Senate, most significant legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, a threshold Democrats are unlikely to meet with their current projected count of 54 to 56 seats. Furthermore, even if bills pass both chambers, President Donald Trump would need to sign them into law, a prospect that remains unclear given his administration's stance on judicial appointments.
Several specific proposals are on the table: ethics legislation would mandate the disclosure of gifts and income for justices, with one bill from Rep. Jamie Raskin and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez prohibiting gifts valued over $50. Term limit proposals, such as those from Rep. Johnny Olszewski, D-Md., suggest 18-year terms, which would affect Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas, all of whom have served more than 18 years. Court expansion bills, like one from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, propose increasing the number of justices from nine to 13. Amending the Constitution to impose term limits would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers and ratification by 38 states.
The Bottom Line
The midterm results have shifted the political calculus for Supreme Court reform, moving it from a theoretical discussion to a potential legislative agenda. While the House may pass various reform bills, the Senate's filibuster rule and the presidency remain significant barriers to enactment. The coming months will reveal whether Democratic leadership will prioritize high-profile but difficult-to-pass structural changes, such as term limits or court expansion, or focus on ethics and transparency measures that might have broader appeal. The outcome will likely depend on public pressure and the willingness of President Trump to engage with congressional demands regarding the judiciary.