Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Commuting America’s life sentence

Justice Clarence Thomas being sworn in

Clarence Thomas was the second-youngest person named to the Supreme Court in the 20th century.

Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

A few decades ago, some savvy operatives on the right came to understand the immense political advantages of selecting judges and Supreme Court nominees young enough to serve almost in perpetuity. The most prominent of these early post-pubescent nominees, Clarence Thomas in 1991, was also the most contentious, at least until recently. The Anita Hill storm aside, Thomas was considered neither a brilliant legal scholar nor possessed of a long history of judicial achievement. He had been a judge for only 18 months. But that was hardly the point.


And so, President George H.W. Bush, after proclaiming an exhaustive search for the best qualified man or woman to help steer the nation’s search for justice, settled on the 43-year-old Thomas, the second youngest person to be named to the court in the 20th century. That the arch-conservative Thomas, the second Black Supreme Court nominee, was to fill the seat of the first Black Supreme Court nominee, the towering Thurgood Marshall, inflamed passions on the left but Thomas survived both scandal and mediocrity to squeak by in the Senate.

That a man whose main, if not only, qualification to be chosen for the nation’s highest tribunal was his youth was due solely to the interpretation of the phrase “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” as meaning “for life.” Given that reading of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, the only way to replace a justice is if a majority of the House votes to indict them for a crime or other impeachable offense and two-thirds of the Senate agrees. As only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached — Samuel Chase in 1804 — and none convicted, removal for cause is unlikely at best. If anything, Thomas’ ability to blithely ignore the outrage surrounding his wife’s blatantly partisan shenanigans with far-right conspiracy theorists, what used to be called “the lunatic fringe,” is ample testimony that successful impeachment is a near impossibility.

With the guarantee of lengthy service came an extreme increase in the stakes — thus Republicans’ refusal to consider Merrick Garland, the beer brawl over Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and the shoehorn confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. In addition, by limiting appointments to men and women too young to join AARP, the nation has effectively eliminated an entire range of highly accomplished and respected jurists, lawyers and legal scholars from consideration. Marshall, who was 60 at the time of his appointment, as was Oliver Wendell Holmes, would not even make the short list today.

One of the proposals for restoring some degree of fairness to the appointment process, as well as curbing what has become the court’s virtually unchecked power, is the institution of term limits. But this approach, despite its obvious advantages in creating a more balanced court, has been considered undoable through ordinary legislation because, with lifetime tenure enshrined in Article III, any attempt to alter that arrangement would require an amendment, another unwieldy and improbable prospect.

Except that Article III actually enshrines no such thing.

It can just as easily be postulated that what the Framers had in mind was not that judges could remain on the bench until they keeled over, but rather that, as long as they discharged their duties professionally, they could not be removed solely for their political views. In addition to their failed Chase impeachment, Jeffersonians tried to pry John Pickering out of his seat as a federal District Court judge in 1803, claiming “drunkeness” when it was actually a transparent attempt to erode Federalist influence in the judiciary. Both Pickering and Chase survived because the only real charges against them were strictly political. Thomas Jefferson himself made little secret of his desire to try to remove his cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall, in favor of his friend Spencer Roane, but Marshall, as agile politically as they come, gave him no opening.

Regardless, many scholars insist that the Framers equated “good behavior” with “for life” as a generally accepted concept, and so the two phrases are interchangeable. There is, however, a good bit of evidence to indicate this was not the case.

During the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when the delegates were deciding both the manner of selecting senators and their terms of office, a proposal was made that senators serve without the need for reappointment. Gouverneur Morris, the man who wrote the final draft of the Constitution, commented that while the Senate should possess an “aristocratic spirit,” “a Senate for life” would be “noble bait” to potential demagogues who sought such an appointment as a base of power. If anyone would know the difference between “good behavior” and “life,” it was Morris.

In addition, while debating a president’s proposed term of office, Virginia’s George Mason responded to Alexander Hamilton’s suggestion that the executive “be vested with lifetime tenure or at least tenure during good behavior,” insisting that “good behavior” could be construed as “a softer name only for executive for life.” It seems that both Hamilton and Mason recognized the difference in the two terms as well. Thus, if the Framers intended judges to serve “for life,” it would have been a simple matter for Morris to draft the sentence to make that intention clear.

There is indirect evidence as well. For four long, hot months in Philadelphia in 1787, delegates who did not know and often did not like one another wrangled to try to find a means of government that would provide some centralized authority without granting any branch sufficient tools to wield despotic power over either the other branches or the states. It stretches credibility to believe that in the midst of these often acrimonious negotiations, the delegates would be willing to create one branch that consisted of unelected, lifetime members with no checks on their authority or power, short of impeachment, which was made intentionally impracticable.

If, therefore, Article III is read the way the Framers likely intended, establishing term limits for justices would not require a constitutional amendment, just an act of Congress. If such a law would pass and be signed by the president, the nation would not only return a degree of civility to a process that has careened hopelessly out of control, but we could once again begin to choose members of the nation’s highest and most powerful court on the basis of their achievements, rather than just their longevity.

Read More

Project 2025 and the Assault on Immigrant Rights
the statue of liberty is shown against a blue sky
Photo by Chris Linnett on Unsplash

Project 2025 and the Assault on Immigrant Rights

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy explaining how many of the administration’s executive actions harm individuals throughout the country and demonstrate the link between these actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025.

The Impact of Executive Edicts On Immigration – At War With Ourselves

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Those enduring words from the poem by Emma Lazarus were inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty about 160 years ago. Today, Donald Trump routinely delivers a very different message. As he sees it, nations around the world “are emptying their mental institutions and insane asylums,” and sending the residents to the United States. “They are also coming from Africa, the Congo in Africa, from prisons in Congo.” “They are coming in from Asia. They’re coming in from the Middle East.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Elbows Up, Arms Crossed
people gathering near green trees during daytime
Photo by Malu Laker on Unsplash

Elbows Up, Arms Crossed

Last month, 23andMe announced it was filing for bankruptcy, and dozens of states are suing to stop the company from selling off personal data. Yet, unlike for-profit businesses, lawyers in nonprofit organizations cannot just stop representing clients when funding ends. We continue the representation until the matter is concluded. This is a quagmire; immigration cases such as a U Visa can take 30 years to process from start to finish.

We also have a duty of confidentiality of information. This means that we cannot disclose information about representation. I remember learning, as a young attorney, that much like a doctor or therapist, if I saw a client in public, I could not speak to them or disclose that I knew them, unless they initiated that contact. The fact that I was a lawyer and guarded their secrets means everything.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: Congress Meeting in Philadelphia on Declaration of Independence 250th Anniversary

New legislation would convene Congress at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the site of the Declaration of Independence’s signing on July 4, 1776, for the 250th anniversary on July 2, 2026.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Congress Bill Spotlight: Congress Meeting in Philadelphia on Declaration of Independence 250th Anniversary

Hopefully, Nicolas Cage wouldn’t steal it this time, like he did in 2004’s implausible adventure movie National Treasure.

What the bill does

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis

In his televised address to the nation Saturday night regarding the U.S. strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump declared that the attacks targeted “the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.” He framed the operation as a necessary response to decades of Iranian aggression, citing past attacks on U.S. personnel and Tehran’s support for militant proxies.

While those justifications were likely key drivers, the decision to intervene was also shaped by a complex interplay of political strategy, alliance dynamics, and considerations of personal legacy.

Keep ReadingShow less