The Supreme Court blocked states from setting term limits for Congress

Term limits for Congress face a steep constitutional hurdle

Although polls show overwhelming support for congressional term limits, this would require a constitutional amendment. Since 1995, the Supreme Court has barred states from imposing their own limits, leaving only the difficult Article V amendment process as a path forward.

Why Congress doesn't have term limits

Eighty-seven percent of Americans want term limits for Congress. So why don't they exist? The Founders debated this in 1787 and chose not to include them, believing elections would be enough. In the 1990s, 23 states tried to make it happen—until the Supreme Court struck them all down in a 5-4 decision.

16 states impose term limits on their legislatures

As of 2025, 16 states limit how long lawmakers can serve, usually capping tenure at eight to 12 years in one chamber or across both chambers combined. Most of these limits stem from a 1990s reform wave aimed at curbing career politicians.

Watch scholars debate Supreme Court term limits

In a debate from 2017, legal scholars from across the political spectrum spar over whether justices should serve fixed terms. The discussion highlights bipartisan concerns about judicial independence, accountability, and the risks of lifetime tenure.

A vast majority of Americans support term limits for Congress

In a 2023 poll, 87% of respondents said they supported imposing term limits on members of Congress. The overwhelming bipartisan backing makes term limits one of the most consistently popular political reforms in the United States.

The Founders were split on term limits during the Constitutional Convention

At the Constitutional Convention, delegates debated whether to mandate term limits. In letters, Jefferson warned that indefinite service could entrench power, while Madison argued that regular elections—not forced turnover—were the best safeguard against abuse.

State supreme court justices almost never serve for life

Unlike US Supreme Court justices, 99% of state supreme court justices face term limits, reselection, or mandatory retirement ages. Since 1970, they've averaged 13 years on the bench—half the tenure of their federal counterparts.

Critics argue that term limits weaken democracy and legislative effectiveness

Opponents contend that term limits deprive voters of choice, remove experienced lawmakers, and shift power to lobbyists and unelected staff. They believe frequent turnover reduces institutional knowledge and undermines the effectiveness of legislatures.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

Supporters say term limits prevent entrenched power

Advocates argue that term limits stop politicians from becoming career insiders, make government more accountable, and ensure fresh ideas circulate. They believe regular turnover keeps officials closer to the public and less beholden to special interests.

Courts have blocked the Trump administration's 2025 executive order limiting birthright citizenship

In June 2025, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the order. Since then, two federal appellate courts have found the order unconstitutional, halting its enforcement nationwide.

37 states today limit how long governors can serve

Most states cap governors to two consecutive four-year terms, though rules vary—Virginia is unique in allowing only one term at a time. These limits reflect a long tradition of restricting executive power at the state level.

Most Americans support age limits for justices, elected officials

As members of Congress and Supreme Court justices continue to serve at an average age far older than in the past, polls show a majority of Americans favor setting an age limit for these roles. Roughly 79% support caps for federal elected officials, and 74% favor such limits for Supreme Court justices. A constitutional amendment would be required.

The 22nd Amendment set a 2-term limit on the presidency

Ratified in 1951, the amendment states that no person may be elected president more than twice. It also specifies that a vice president who assumes office midterm may serve up to 10 years in total.

Thousands of state voting changes have been federally blocked since the Voting Rights Act

Since 1965, federal oversight has blocked thousands of state-level voting changes—including redistricting plans—by requiring approval for measures that could affect minority representation, a process scaled back by the Supreme Court in 2013.

The Supreme Court term runs from October to June

The Supreme Court of the United States begins each term on the first Monday in October, alternating two-week sittings and recesses, hearing arguments mainly on Mondays through Wednesdays, and deciding which of thousands of petitions will receive full review.

Supreme Court justices serve for life

The Constitution grants Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments to shield them from electoral politics and outside pressure, a design meant to preserve judicial independence but now widely debated due to longer lifespans and partisan balances of the court.

The 22nd Amendment was a reaction to Roosevelt's four terms

After Franklin D. Roosevelt won four elections, Congress moved to prevent future presidents from holding power indefinitely. Ratified in 1951, the 22nd Amendment set a firm two-term limit as a safeguard against extended presidencies.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court docket is poised to reshape presidential power

As the Supreme Court begins a new term, several major cases could define the scope of presidential authority. The court may rule on President Trump's efforts to control state National Guard units, fire independent officials, impose tariffs, and cut congressionally mandated federal spending.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

The Supreme Court has greatly expanded executive power in recent years

In Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a former president enjoys absolute immunity for "official acts" in his constitutional core powers. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the court limited federal courts' ability to block executive enforcement through nationwide injunctions—decisions that shifted power toward the executive branch.

The Senate's filibuster—a procedure that allows for unlimited debate—is not in the Constitution

In the United States Senate, the filibuster enables senators to delay or block legislation. Ending debate became possible in 1917 with a cloture rule requiring a two-thirds vote. In 1975, that was changed to 60 votes in most cases.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

A 2013 Supreme Court case weakened federal oversight of redistricting

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula, reducing federal oversight of voting laws—including redistricting—and allowing changes to take effect without prior approval.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

John Marshall strengthened the Supreme Court and national authority

As chief justice, John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. He reinforced federal supremacy in key cases, defining the Supreme Court as a powerful arbiter between states and the national government under the US federal system.

The Supreme Court has never definitively settled federal war powers

Despite more than two centuries of conflict over war powers, the Supreme Court has consistently avoided defining the precise boundary between congressional and executive authority, leaving that boundary to be contested by the political branches.

An 1873 Supreme Court case about slaughterhouses weakened parts of the 14th Amendment

In 1873, the Supreme Court's Slaughterhouse Cases ruled that the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause protected only federal—not state—citizenship rights, greatly limiting the amendment's power to safeguard enslaved people from state discrimination.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.

Gibbons v. Ogden expanded federal power over interstate commerce

In 1824, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a New York steamboat monopoly, ruling that navigation between states constitutes interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Congress has authority over such commerce and that conflicting state laws are void under the supremacy clause.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

The separation of powers is a pivotal component of the US Constitution

Explore how the three branches interact through the Supreme Court case of US v. Alvarez. The Supreme Court first struck down a law, then Congress and the president later revised it—illustrating how judicial review can reshape legislation and executive action.

Citizens United extended First Amendment protections to corporate political spending

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision struck down limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and other organizations, ruling that such spending is protected speech—a decision that was deeply contested and reshaped campaign finance law.

Early state constitutions often limited governors to short terms

In the years after independence, many states drafted constitutions to limit executive power. Most governors served only one- or two-year terms, sometimes with breaks before reelection.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

In 2025, the 'two strikes and you're out' rule took effect to protect consumers from repeated attempts to withdraw money

After years of being delayed by litigation, a 2024 US Supreme Court ruling upheld a law that prevents lenders from attempting to take payments from accounts with insufficient funds more than twice without reauthorization. This tactic is commonly used by payday loan companies, which technically require repayment on the day borrowers receive their paychecks.

The Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that Trump's emergency tariff powers didn't extend to imposing tariffs

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a 1977 law granting the president authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies—does not authorise the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, a power the Constitution reserves to Congress.

Research shows that termed-out lawmakers become less active

A University of Chicago and Stanford study found that state legislators barred from reelection sponsor fewer bills, serve on fewer committees, and skip more votes. The research suggests lawmakers are more productive when future elections remain possible.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed unlimited independent spending in US elections

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowed corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections independently of candidates—while leaving direct contribution limits intact—expanding the role of wealthy donors and outside influence in American political campaigns.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and required states to provide equal legal protection to all.

The Supreme Court's first major free-speech ruling rested on a legal standard that was later overturned

In Schenck v. United States (1919), the court introduced the "clear and present danger" test—permitting the government to restrict speech that posed an immediate threat to public safety. Although the doctrine was later replaced, the ruling upheld the conviction of a man who had distributed anti-draft pamphlets.

The nullification crisis tested whether states could defy federal law

In the 1830s, South Carolina declared federal tariffs void within its borders. President Andrew Jackson threatened military force, Congress passed a compromise tariff, and the episode ended with federal authority prevailing over state nullification.

States are constitutionally mandated to draw their own congressional districts

Under Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution, state legislatures possess the authority to determine how congressional districts are drawn. However, Congress retains the power to alter these rules if it chooses to.

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld implied powers and blocked states from taxing the federal government

In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland confirmed that Congress may use implied powers under the necessary and proper clause and ruled that states cannot tax federal institutions, reaffirming the supremacy of the federal government within its constitutionally delegated powers.

John Marshall inherited a marginal and largely inactive Supreme Court

By 1801, the court had little institutional authority or public standing. Its first three chief justices served only 11 years combined, and in its first decade, the court decided only 63 cases—none of which struck down a federal or state law.

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The 1803 ruling empowered courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, permanently expanding the Supreme Court's authority and cementing its role as a coequal branch. This video explains the case and its lasting impact.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

A 1986 Supreme Court ruling prohibited race-based jury strikes, but racial imbalance in jury selection persists

Batson v. Kentucky banned prosecutors from excluding jurors on the basis of race, but critics say it backfired. Prosecutors often use race-neutral pretexts to remove potential jurors that judges rarely reject, and some courts have never found a violation of the ruling.

The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the states or the people

Any powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. It has been cited in legal battles over healthcare, marijuana, and environmental regulation.

Congressional turnover was far more common in the early republic

Many early lawmakers served just one or two terms before stepping aside, reflecting the ideal of the citizen legislator and the discomforts of living in Washington, DC. Longer careers in Congress became typical only later in the 19th century.