What This Bill Does
H.J. Res. 1 proposes a constitutional amendment that would require the Supreme Court of the United States to have exactly nine justices: one chief justice and eight associate justices. If adopted, it would affect the structure of the Supreme Court itself rather than creating a new program or spending measure. The amendment would take effect only if ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years after submission. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it would change the Court’s size only if Congress and the states approve it through the amendment process.
- Requires the Supreme Court to have exactly nine justices.
- Defines the Court as one chief justice and eight associate justices.
- Would become effective only after ratification by three-fourths of the states.
- Sets a seven-year deadline after submission for ratification.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, this bill would not change taxes, benefits, or agency programs directly, but it could shape future Supreme Court decisions by fixing the Court at nine members. If adopted, it would affect anyone whose rights or obligations are later decided by the Court, because the amendment would lock in the Court’s size and limit future changes through ordinary law.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Constitutional originalists and court-structure reform advocates They may argue that fixing the Court at nine justices preserves a long-standing institutional norm and prevents partisan court-packing battles. A constitutional rule would make the Court’s size stable and harder to manipulate through ordinary legislation.
- Voters concerned about judicial legitimacy They may see a fixed nine-member Court as a way to reduce public suspicion that the Court’s size will be changed for political advantage. Supporters can argue that a clear constitutional rule could strengthen confidence in the judiciary’s independence.
- Members of Congress who want a permanent rule on court size They may favor putting the number in the Constitution so future Congresses cannot alter it by statute. That gives certainty to the structure of the federal judiciary and avoids recurring fights over expansion or contraction.
- Court reform advocates who want flexibility They may argue that the Constitution should not lock in one Court size forever, because future circumstances could justify a different number of justices. A fixed rule would remove Congress’s ability to respond to institutional problems through ordinary law.
- Constitutional change skeptics They may oppose using the amendment process for a structural rule that could have been left to statute. In their view, constitutionalizing the Court’s size makes the document less adaptable and turns a policy dispute into a rigid constitutional command.
- People worried about entrenching current power balances They may argue that fixing the Court at nine could preserve the status quo in a way that benefits whichever political coalition currently prefers it. Opponents may see the amendment as freezing a contested arrangement rather than resolving the underlying debate about judicial legitimacy.
Key Implications
-
““The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices””
This would constitutionally lock the Court’s membership at nine, so changing the number would require another constitutional amendment rather than a regular law.
-
““one chief justice and eight associate justices””
The amendment does not just set a total number; it also specifies the Court’s internal composition. That leaves no room for a different mix of justices under this rule.
-
““ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States””
The proposal would only take effect if 38 states ratify it, which is the standard but very demanding constitutional-amendment threshold.
-
““within seven years after the date of its submission””
This creates a deadline for state ratification. If the amendment is not approved in time, it would expire rather than remain pending indefinitely.
Latest Status
June 3, 2026
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 8.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.