Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We’ve expanded the Supreme Court before. It’s time to do so again.

Supreme Court expansion protest

People demonstrated outside the White House in December, calling on President Biden to support adding more justices to the Supreme Court.

Paul Morigi/Getty Images

Sarkar is deputy communications director and press secretary for Stand Up America.

With the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade generating shockwaves across the country, Supreme Court expansion is once again emerging as a serious proposal in response to the extreme partisanship overtaking our nation’s highest court. Throughout our nation’s history, federal lawmakers have expanded and reduced the size of the Supreme Court several times to ensure a bench that provides prudent and fair judicial review.

The history of court expansion demonstrates that not only has the court’s size changed many times — changes to the number of seats on the bench are the logical outcome of the Framers’ intent for the Supreme Court.


While the Framers of our Constitution established the Supreme Court as the highest judicial body in the land, they left the particulars of the court for Congress to decide, including the size of the bench, the scope of the court’s jurisdiction, and the length of justices’ tenure. In the early days of our nation, the very first Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 establishing a Supreme Court of six justices. Since then, the size of the court has fluctuated.

It reached 10 justices during the Civil War, and Congress attempted to shrink the bench to five after the election of 1800 (although it reversed that change before it could go into effect). Some experts contend that the court’s wartime expansion was intended to help President Abraham Lincoln deliver a Union victory and bring an end to slavery by appointing more anti-slavery Republicans to the bench.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Expanding the Supreme Court to advance a political agenda or protect our fundamental rights is neither new nor nefarious — these politically informed changes to the size of the bench are inherent to the Framers’ delegation of the court’s design to Congress. As the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority threatens to overturn our long-held constitutional right to an abortion, it is ever more the moral and constitutional imperative of Congress to check the court when Americans' fundamental rights are at stake.

Today, progressive activists are leading the charge to rebalance the undemocratically appointed conservativate supermajority and restore public trust in our nation’s highest court. Like most laws, one adding justices to the bench requires a majority vote in each chamber. But in the era of rampant abuse of the filibuster, the Senate would need a supermajority of 60 votes on a procedural matter just to get to a vote on final passage and send it to President Biden’s desk. Unless Democrats end the Senate filibuster by November and pass the Judiciary Act, the odds of rebalancing the court’s ideological scales in the near future are slim.

But not impossible.

The most serious current congressional proposal for court expansion would add four seats to the bench. The rationale behind that number? Doing so would bring the size of the bench into alignment with the number of circuit courts in our country’s legal system, which has been the case throughout most of our history. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions on life-or-death issues — like the right to an abortion and the right to be safe from gun violence — are also likely to serve as a movement catalyst for a growing number of Americans. The outrage people expressed over the court’s intent to strike down Roe v. Wade is just the beginning.

Court expansion aims to restore ideological balance on the bench that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell stacked with three right-wing appointments: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. This, in tandem with McConnell’s refusal to allow outgoing Barack Obama to appoint Merrick Garland to the bench but permitting Trump to appoint Barrett in the final days of his presidency, justifiably outraged Democrats who were not only denied their party’s rightful choice in Obama’s second term, but sidelined while Trump got his choice under an entirely different set of rules.

Because of Trump’s flurry of appointments to the Supreme Court, there is now an overwhelming 6-3 conservative supermajority — one that fails to uphold the constitutional rights of the American people. No wonder the current Supreme Court hit an historically low approval rating of 40 percent after its shadow docket decision to allow a controversial Texas abortion law to stand despite national outrage against the bill’s clearly unconstitutional restriction on reproductive rights. What’s more, in a poll conducted after that, more than half of registered voters expressed some level of support for court expansion to rebalance the bench away from an extreme political agenda and back toward upholding the Constitution.

If the conservative supermajority accurately represented the American public’s values and priorities, expansion might not be needed. But the bench is radically out of step with the majority of Americans and its constitutional purpose of defending the rights of all people, especially minorities — as was the case during Lincoln’s wartime court expansion effort. Today, the Supreme Court iis not just protecting the Trumpian minority its majority is politically beholden to; now, the court is actually stripping guaranteed rights and freedoms from the majority of Americans who want those rights and freedoms — bodily autonomy, the right to breathe clean air, to not be terrified of gun violence at school or work — that have long been taken for granted.

To restore the legitimacy of and public confidence in the Supreme Court, Congress must leverage its power to check the court’s conservative supermajority and its partisan agenda by adding justices who will fairly apply legal precedent and bring an end to the rampaging radicalism that has hijacked our nation’s highest court. In the end, this is not an argument for Democrats to overtake the Court — it is a resounding demand from the majority of Americans to save our court from the ongoing right-wing takeover and ensure that upholding the Constitution remains the Supreme Court’s sole objective.

Read More

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Wegovy box
Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

How Congress can quickly make Ozempic, Wegovy affordable

Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

A whopping one in eight U.S. adults have taken GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic for weight loss and related conditions. Their popularity and efficacy have sparked a prescription-writing frenzy in recent years, leaving both medications on the Food and Drug Administration's drug shortage list since May 2023.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man climbing a set of exterior steps

The author, Miliyon Ethiopis, following a court’s decision to grant his asylum request on June 18.

U.S. immigration court ruling on statelessness could have wide impact

Ethiopis is a co-founder of United Stateless, a national organization led by stateless people.

I feel like I have been born again, after a U.S. immigration court made a remarkable ruling in my “statelessness” case in June. I hope that my case will have significant, broader implications for other stateless people in America.

Being stateless means no country will claim you as a citizen. We don't belong anywhere. Stateless people are military veterans. We are Harvard graduates. We are Holocaust survivors. There are millions of stateless people around the world, and 200,000 such people in the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bar graph of shopping carts
Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty Images

Have prices increased 40 percent to 50 percent since Trump left office?

This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Have prices increased 40 percent to 50 percent since Trump left office?

No.

Cumulative inflation since former President Donald Trump left office in January 2021 through May 2024 was 20.1 percent according to data from the Federal Reserve’s Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, or CPI-U.

Trump told a crowd on June 18 in Racine, Wis., that "real inflation" is more than twice that.

Keep ReadingShow less
Girl in a Christian school

Half the students benefiting from ESAs never attended public school — they were always privately educated.

Jonathan Kirn

Project 2025: Education savings accounts

Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," the Heritage Foundation’s guide for a second Trump administration is more commonly known as Project 2025. One section outlines an ambitious plan to expand education savings accounts, which allow parents to decide how to spend some of the public money allocated to their children’s education, across the United States. It recommends creating a model for ESAs by allowing their use by students in active-duty military families, those studying in D.C., and students attending schools on tribal lands.

Keep ReadingShow less