Does the Supreme Court Have to Have 9 Justices?

Again in 2021, President Joe Biden created the Presidential Fee on the Supreme Courtroom of the US. That December, they issued their report, which boldly proclaimed: “As a authorized matter, we conclude that Congress has broad energy to construction the Supreme Courtroom by increasing (or contracting) the variety of Justices. The prudential query is tougher, and Commissioners are divided on whether or not Courtroom enlargement could be clever.”

Truly, it wasn’t daring in any respect, completely ducking the query: Ought to we broaden the Supreme Courtroom?

Many Democrats have been deeply disillusioned, believing motion is required to offset the three justices appointed throughout the Trump administration. (To not point out then-Majority Chief Mitch McConnell blocking Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland from even getting a listening to in 2016.)

Mix the report’s failure to take a place with Democratic senators like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema opposing further justices, and it appears secure to imagine 9 will stay our nation’s quantity for a while to come back.


Subscribe to our Historynet Now! publication for the most effective of the previous, delivered each Wednesday.


The final critical try to broaden the Supreme Courtroom occurred in 1937. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought so as to add additional justices, presumably sympathetic to his views. He argued we should always appoint a further justice for any member of the court docket over age 70 who didn’t retire. (This might end in two additions to our present Supreme Courtroom, as Justices Thomas and Alito have crossed that threshold.)

Clearly, FDR’s effort didn’t end in any further justices. It’s usually portrayed as a gross overreach by the chief department and, finally, a triumph for the judicial.

Which is smart. Why would anybody take into account altering the variety of justices, when everyone knows from the very starting we’ve had … wait, we had six initially?

And we went as much as 10 at one level?

It’s true. And you can truly argue FDR received what he needed anyway.

Not the Structure’s Concern

Because the the Presidential Fee on the Supreme Courtroom identified, Congress has the fitting to find out the variety of justices. The Structure doesn’t specify what number of there are speculated to be.

Since its institution in 1789, the variety of Supreme Courtroom Justices has modified six instances. Congress generally elevated the quantity if the president have been a member of their social gathering and so they needed to strengthen his hand by giving him an opportunity to call new justices. Equally, they lowered the quantity in a bid to forestall appointments when the opposite social gathering held the White Home. (Just one justice ever has been impeached, however Samuel Chase was acquitted in 1805 and continued serving till his demise.)

9 didn’t change into the quantity till 1869, throughout the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. It was a time of relative political stability: After the Civil Struggle, Republicans gained 10 of 12 presidential elections and usually held Congress. Fairly frankly, their hand was robust sufficient they didn’t have to fret about additional strengthening it.

In fact, the Supreme Courtroom has at all times been politicized. Precise politicians have served on it, notably President William Howard Taft and California Gov. Earl Warren.

Supreme Courtroom Justice Amy Coney Barrett felt obliged to defend herself and colleagues as not “partisan hacks” in 2021 — whereas showing with Sen. Mitch McConnell at his McConnell Middle on the College of Louisville. (The identical majority chief despised by many on the left when he pushed by means of judges nominated by fellow Republican Donald Trump, together with Barrett herself, whereas blocking listening to for Democrat Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.)


Lastly, in 1937, it appeared the quantity would change once more. In a single nook: A massively widespread president — FDR gained reelection in 1936 with 60.8% of the favored vote and a 523-8 Electoral School margin.

Within the different: A Supreme Courtroom that stored blocking parts of his New Deal by 5-4 votes.

Because the variety of justices remained unchanged, it’s straightforward to say FDR misplaced. However the reality is he received what he needed. After he began his push, these losses all of a sudden became 5-4 victories. In a single day, Justice Owen Roberts went from blocking the administration to waving it ahead. Whether or not this was a real change of coronary heart or a calculated resolution to deflate the court docket packing, solely Owen can say.

Likewise, it isn’t as if FDR paid a long-lasting political worth. He went on to win a 3rd time period after which a fourth. (In 1944 — his “narrowest” victory — he took 53.4% of the vote and gained the Electoral School 432-99.) Nor did his allies, because the Democrats held Congress proper up till his demise in 1945.  


At present, polls reveal a deepening disillusionment with the Supreme Courtroom itself. Even its personal members are publicly critiquing it. Clarence Thomas pointedly praised the times earlier than present Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The court docket that was collectively for 11 years was a wonderful court docket,” Thomas stated. “It was one you seemed ahead to being part of.”

(It’s notably putting since Roberts and Thomas nominally allies — each are Republican-appointed and, every time period, sometimes vote the identical approach over 70 p.c of the time.)

Understandably, speak of adjusting the variety of justices on the court docket has percolated once more.


What would have occurred if the Supreme Courtroom dug in? In the event that they stored blocking the New Deal and FDR determined to make use of his full political clout in opposition to it? Properly, we have been spared having to reply the query.

Congress has the facility to broaden the Supreme Courtroom. Ought to they train it? That’s one other query completely. Again in 1937, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes made a powerful argument why they need to not: “There could be extra judges to listen to, extra judges to confer, extra judges to debate, extra judges to be satisfied and to determine.”

(Translation: Extra judges, extra issues.)

So if there ever does come a time when Congress decides the Supreme Courtroom wants a brand new headcount … possibly we shouldn’t pack the court docket a lot as shrink it.

historynet magazines

Our 9 best-selling historical past titles characteristic in-depth storytelling and iconic imagery to interact and inform on the individuals, the wars, and the occasions that formed America and the world.