Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It's time to end life tenure at the Supreme Court

Opinion

Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

There's no "Antonin Scalia" or "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" seat mentioned in the Constitution, "but it sure feels that way," writes Gabe Roth.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Roth is executive director of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for greater transparency and accountability in the federal judiciary.


Two Supreme Court justices have been hospitalized in the past month for serious health issues. Either could have died, reshaping the court — and the law — for decades. These close calls have increased interest in a question that scholars have been debating since our nation's founding: Should justices serve on the high court for life?

The simple answer is that they shouldn't. And there's a straightforward and widely popular fix that would safeguard judicial independence while preventing superannuation: establishing 18-year term limits for future justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts is only 65, but given his history of seizures, the June 21 fall that landed him in the hospital for a night was of great concern for those who've praised his efforts to keep the court above the political fray during the Trump presidency. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's 87, spent a night in Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore last week for a possible infection and subsequently announced she's being treated for a recurrence of cancer, reigniting liberals' fears over a possible vacancy during the peak of a presidential campaign.

Ginsburg's health has caused anxiety ever since Republicans took control of the Senate after the 2014 election, when she was a mere 81 and had already served on the high court for 21 years. That should have been enough time to make her mark on the law, right?

In the past, justices would leave the court for all sorts of reasons after tenures of 15 to 20 years — sometimes even less. Then they'd run for office, take a different government appointment, return to private practice or simply enjoy their sunset years. Nowadays, justices hold on to their power for as long as they can, say 30 or 35 years — and then continue holding on to it until a president with whom they tend to agree sits in the Oval Office.

There's no "Ginsburg seat" or "Antonin Scalia seat" mentioned in the founding document, but it sure feels that way.

The fate of our nation's laws should rest in the hands of individuals who hold their positions based on fairness and regularity, not on actuarial tables and support for the current president.

That's why I, and many others who are much smarter, advocate limiting future justices to 18 years of active service. After that, they would become "senior justices," maintaining the same office and compensation as Article III of the Constitution commands, but not hearing cases unless called upon. Under this proposal, senior justices could also choose to serve on a lower court by designation, something that justices who have retired from the court regularly do.

The elegance of the 18-year plan is that it allows each president to nominate two of the nine justices per four-year term, with no exceptions. In the case of an unexpected vacancy — because of death or medical emergency, say — a senior justice would fill in until the expiration of the term of the departed justice. For example, when Scalia died four years ago, the court would not have been reduced to eight justices; rather, the most recently retired justice, John Paul Stevens, would have taken his place until the next justice was confirmed.

Term limits for the Supreme Court are widely popular, with polling this spring showing 77 percent of Americans favoring the reform. It's an idea that has received support from intellectuals across the political spectrum and was recently endorsed by the American Academy for Arts and Sciences, a society founded a decade before the Constitution was ratified.

Limiting justices' terms would not magically end the hyperpartisanship in Washington today. But it would greatly reduce the chance and gamesmanship that currently characterize the process of confirming justices. Not happy with a recently confirmed justice? No problem. The next opportunity to shape the court is coming in 24 months.

Such regularity would reduce the temperature of today's Senate confirmation process, promote fair-mindedness and increase the chances the future justices are seasoned jurists in their 50s or 60s — and not firebrands in their 40s replacing jurists in their 90s, which is what the current system encourages.

"There is much to be said for changing life tenure to a term of years, without possibility of reappointment," one of President Rondald Reagan's lawyers wrote in 1983. Term limits, he added "would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence. It would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges. Both developments would, in my view, be healthy ones."

That lawyer was John Roberts. Congress should heed that advice and pass a law. Though the Constitution implies a justice serves for life, it doesn't say on which court she shall serve out her days.

Serve 18 years on the Supreme Court, then rotate to a lower court or retire outright, and return to the high court if needed. That way fairness, not a cabal of the infirm, will reign supreme.

Read More

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why free speech rights got left out of the Constitution – and added in later via the First Amendment

Supporters of free speech gather in September 2025 to protest the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!', across the street from the theater where the show is produced in Hollywood.

Why free speech rights got left out of the Constitution – and added in later via the First Amendment

Bipartisan agreement is rare in these politically polarized days.

But that’s just what happened in response to ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The suspension followed the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s threat to punish the network for Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight
President Donald Trump holds a press conference with Attorney ...

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight

Checks and balances can only work if government officials are willing to use their authority to check abuses of power by others. Without that, our Constitution is an empty promise.

And without the will to stand up to such abuses, freedom and democracy also become empty promises. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, the Constitution was designed to ensure that “the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”

Keep ReadingShow less
From Nixon to Trump: How Scandals Reshape Power, Not Justice

Richard Nixon circa 1983.

(Photo by Images Press/IMAGES/Getty Images)

From Nixon to Trump: How Scandals Reshape Power, Not Justice

The American political system flatters itself with tales of enduring resilience. We are told that each scandal is a crucible, a test from which the republic emerges tougher, wiser, and better fortified. The institutions bend, the story goes, but they do not break. The narrative is comforting because it suggests that corruption is always self-limiting, that crisis is always purgative, that turmoil survived is justice fortified.

But the record tells another story. Scandal after scandal has not made American democracy sturdier. It has hollowed it out, teaching the powerful not restraint, but ever-shrewder ways to transgress.

Keep ReadingShow less