Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Single 18-year terms for justices? Not so fast.

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.


As the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States conducts its "analysis of the principal arguments ... for and against Supreme Court reform," one proposal gaining attention would limit each justice to a single, 18-year term. Designed to standardize departures and reduce confirmation partisanship, the idea offers considerable benefits. But one flaw is likely fatal.

The advocates' case is otherwise strong, as recounted by professors Paul Collins and Artemus Ward, or detailed in professor Akhil Amar's testimony before the commission on July 20. With fixed appointments every two years (in odd years), each president would nominate two justices per term. A smoother, less volatile confirmation process would not be upended by any one nomination. The experience of single-term presidents like Jimmy Carter, who appointed zero justices, and Donald Trump, who appointed three, would not be replicated.

Other benefits include: disincentivizing the now-common practice of presidents appointing less-experienced, young justices so they serve longer with greater personal impact; preventing justices from timing their departure to occur during terms of like-minded presidents; and lessening the possibility of declining performance as elder justices age.

Such a schedule is admirably clean and impactful. It has been endorsed by Our Common Purpose, the highly regarded project of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, which includes the proposal in its 31 recommendations to improve U.S. elections and civic life. Why doubt its efficacy? Because of the hyperpartisanship everyone wants curtailed.

The plan's flaw is revealed when Collins and Ward claim that fixed terms "would help insulate the court from becoming a campaign issue because vacancies would no longer arise during election years." Amar makes the same mistake when he says that scheduling the appointments "in odd years further reduces the political temperature of Court confirmation battles by staging these battles in nonelection years." Such "years" may have relevance when a Senate majority leader decides to schedule confirmations (in 2020) or not (in 2016), but they were abandoned decades ago when describing presidential campaign timeframes.

This mistaken sense of timing is critical, as the fixed schedule's certainty also would influence what happens before every nomination during every election cycle. New, pre-confirmation politics would focus on the departing justices; for each presidential race, the two justices whom the winner would replace would be known — long before the presidential contenders themselves would be known. To varying degrees, each Senate campaign also would contend with this definitive departure information. Not only would polarization unrelated to confirmation rise, potentially dramatically, but it also would become perpetual. Hyperpartisanship would merely shift from one arena — the confirmation process — to another — the permanent campaign.

In addition to each party and each candidate being able to use or abuse such concrete knowledge, consider the response of advocacy groups on all sides of any hot-button issue. Fueled by independent funding and media attention, special interests would take early and loud advantage of knowing the justices to be replaced.

In contrast then, the current selection method may remain preferable. Randomly determined turnover, either by a justice's death in office or self-selected retirement, means that pre-nomination partisanship is speculative, hard to sustain and short-lived (i.e., political but not hyperpartisan).

Two additional points merit attention. First, contextually, it bears noting that fixed terms likely would not alter the general political posture of the Court. Had non-renewable 18-year terms been used since the Eisenhower administration, 12 departures from the court would have occurred earlier, so a different president would have appointed the successors. In eight of these 12 cases, a president from the same party would have made the nominations; the other party's president would have done so in the remaining four cases, but those were evenly split. Such a 70-year record may not be repeated, but it signals minimal potential impact on the partisan roots of the court's makeup.

Secondly, how to create such terms is a subordinate but still consequential issue. Some scholars, like Collins, Ward and Vicki Jackson (who also testified before the commission), anticipate that doing so would require a constitutional amendment. Others (e.g., Amar and OCP's leaders) think they can avoid the steep amendment hurdle by changing the interpretation of lifetime service ("during good Behaviour;" Article III, Section 1) to include some version of emeritus service after completion of an 18-year stint on the court. They further argue that this change could be enacted through federal legislation. Both assertions remain unresolved, and I join those who doubt their prospects; for example, overcoming the conclusion of a recent Congressional Research Service report — "the Framers appear to have understood the Good Behavior Clause to preclude congressional modifications to judicial tenure" – would be a tall order.

The question then becomes twofold: Do the benefits of standardized departures and lessened confirmation politics outweigh the costs of definitive, pre-nomination departure information being weaponized in the permanent campaign, and do they retain enough support from their proponents if they require constitutional amendment? On the former, I reluctantly conclude "no," rendering the latter question moot.

We still can and should deal with political polarization, but on the ground floors of our political structure rather than in its highest court of last resort. The other 30 recommendations in the OCP report offer great starting points, with such proposals as making Election Day a holiday, expanding the use of ranked-choice voting, establishing independent redistricting commissions and adding voting to jury duty as a requirement of citizenship.

The commission's report is due in November. The extent to which it will propose actionable steps is unclear. Regardless, fixed terms for the justices should be neither favorably reviewed nor recommended.

Read More

Donald Trump
How liberals' worst-case readings of Trump actually help Trump
James Devaney/GC Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act

Trump himself has diagnosed Trump Derangement Syndrome upon Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Chris Christie, Robert De Niro, Jimmy Kimmel, and Bill Maher.

Context

Keep ReadingShow less
LGBTQ Refugees Came to America To Escape Discrimination. Now, They Live in Fear in the U.S.
blue and yellow abstract painting
Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash

LGBTQ Refugees Came to America To Escape Discrimination. Now, They Live in Fear in the U.S.

Salvadoran refugee Alberto, who is using a pseudonym out of safety concerns, did not feel secure in his own home. Being a gay man in a country known for state-sponsored violence and community rejection meant Alberto lived his life on high alert.

His family did not accept him. He says one family member physically attacked him because of his identity. He says he has been followed, harassed, and assaulted by police, accused of crimes he didn’t commit when he was studying to become a social worker. His effort to escape the rejection in his community left him, at one point, homeless and lost in a new city.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand holding a little house with an orange roof. Conceptual image.

What domestic violence survivors in public housing need are more flexible options - and they need them now.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Make Housing More Secure, Not Less: Domestic Violence Survivors Need Safety

She called me while she walked her dog because it was the only time she could use the phone without being monitored by her husband. Reaching out to me as a program manager for domestic survivors in a major U.S. city, she wanted to see what her options were and where she and her seven-year-old son could go.

I went over the resources in the community for domestic violence survivors, which were few. The 35-year-old mother told me she had been in and out of domestic violence shelters over the years and could not stand to destabilize her son and herself yet again. She was living now in Section 8 housing.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Refines Military Strategy in Africa As Development Programs Face Cuts

Royal Moroccan Armed Forces service members and U.S. Army Soldiers hold an African Lion banner during a Moroccan F-16 flyover at the closing day of African Lion 2025 (AL25) at Tantan, Morocco, May 23, 2025.

By Sgt. 1st Class Andrew Mallett/U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, Africa

U.S. Refines Military Strategy in Africa As Development Programs Face Cuts

WASHINGTON – Both the Trump administration and its critics agree the U.S. risks losing influence in Africa to rivals like China and Russia. But while the administration argues its commercially driven foreign policy will reverse the trend, critics warn that retreating from development and diplomacy could deepen the problem.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. plans to consolidate embassies, scale back USAID operations, and pivot towards a security and commercial driven approach on the continent. While U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) defense officials insist their core missions within Africa will remain intact, civilian experts and lawmakers argue that abandoning diplomatic and development tools opens the door for strategic competitors to fill the void and fails to take into account what would best benefit African countries.

Keep ReadingShow less