Watch scholars debate Supreme Court term limits

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.

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.

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.

Watch 2 Supreme Court justices debate how the Constitution should be interpreted

In a 2009 conversation, former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer lay out competing approaches to constitutional interpretation: Scalia's textualist, strict constructionism versus Breyer's evolutionary view of the Constitution in practice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Supreme Court blocked states from setting term limits for Congress

In US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that tried to impose term limits on their congressional delegations. The court ruled such restrictions unconstitutional unless added through a federal amendment.

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 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.

In recent decades, Supreme Court nominations have grown increasingly contentious and partisan

This video examines the historical shift from bipartisan, civil confirmation hearings to the deeply divisive process seen today. It focuses on the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork, the most recent nominee to be rejected, as an important moment in this transformation.

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.

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

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.

Debating the Constitution today

The Constitution continues to shape our political and social life today. If you want to understand how today’s political debates connect to the Constitution, check out this podcast from the National Constitution Center. The weekly program features experts from diverse perspectives and explores how constitutional principles shape modern issues.

Hear leading experts on constitutional law discuss the legacy and impact of Marshall

In this podcast, constitutional scholars Michael Gerhardt (University of North Carolina) and Kevin Walsh (University of Richmond) analyze Marshall's 34-year tenure, assessing his role in establishing judicial review, expanding federal power, and shaping the court's institutional authority.

Meet the 9 justices currently serving on the US Supreme Court.

Read SCOTUSblog for daily, nonpartisan coverage of the US Supreme Court

Founded in 2002, SCOTUSblog offers expert analysis from lawyers, professors, and journalists. The blog provides transparent, unbiased explanations of significant cases, real-time updates on decisions, and insights into court nominations and trends.

Explore the most impactful Supreme Court cases in US history

Browse by constitutional topic to explore key rulings, their historical impact, and the legal principles they established. Each case includes a summary of the decision, along with notable excerpts from majority and dissenting opinions.

See who appointed the Supreme Court's 116 throughout its history.

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.

Listen to scholars debate abolishing the Electoral College

In this 2016 podcast episode, Harvard's Alex Keyssar and UVA's James Ceaser debate why the Electoral College was created, how parties reshaped it, and what reforms—national popular vote, runoffs, district allocation—could replace it.

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.

Hear about the individuals who have reshaped the Constitution throughout American history

This multi-episode podcast series from The Washington Post explores how debates, court decisions, and influential individuals have shaped the Constitution as Americans pushed the nation to live up to its founding ideals.

See how a US Supreme Court justice is nominated and confirmed

A president nominates a Supreme Court justice, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts public hearings and background vetting, and the full Senate debates and votes on confirmation—a process explained step by step in this video.

Some novel ideas to improve presidential debates

The first televised presidential debates of 1960 were seemingly so consequential, candidates opted not to participate in one for 16 years. In the last 60 years, debate format has changed frequently as the political parties and news outlets vie for rules to either protect candidates or increase TV ratings. In this brief video, one expert suggests five interesting innovations to the debate format to make them more informative for the average US voter.

Can courts end partisan gerrymandering?

This podcast explored whether courts can rein in partisan map-drawing, focusing on North Carolina's 2023 redistricting battle, the Moore v. Harper case, and the controversial "independent state legislature" theory.

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.

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.

Explore biographies of every justice who has served on the Supreme Court

This archive traces the whole history of the Supreme Court of the United States through detailed biographies of every justice, outlining their backgrounds, appointments, and the legal eras and decisions they helped shape.

The powers of the judicial branch have expanded since the nation's founding

Initially, the Supreme Court was seen as the weakest branch, lacking "the power of the sword or the purse," as Alexander Hamilton noted in *Federalist No. 78*. This podcast explores the political conflicts and pivotal decisions that transformed the court into the powerful constitutional authority it is today.

Court-packing is the attempt to change the number of Supreme Court justices to shift the balance

Because the Constitution leaves the court's size to Congress, presidents have periodically sought to expand or reshape it. This explainer examines past efforts—including Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 plan—and why court-packing remains so controversial.

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.

Experts believe a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship is likely in 2026

In September 2025, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings striking down its executive order on birthright citizenship. If the court takes the case, a decision is expected by mid-2026.

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.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called states 'laboratories of democracy'

Louis Brandeis argued that federalism allows states to experiment with new policies without committing the entire nation, thereby allowing successful ideas to spread while limiting the risks of failure.

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.

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.

John Marshall presided over more than 1,100 Supreme Court decisions

During his 34-year tenure, the Marshall court issued 1,129 decisions, including 1,042 unanimous rulings. Marshall authored more than 500 majority opinions—over half of the court's total output during his tenure as chief justice.

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.

Photography and video are prohibited in the Supreme Court—but artists are not

Because cameras are banned inside the Supreme Court of the United States, courtroom artists document proceedings through sketches. This exhibition features works from 1964 to today, capturing the human drama of landmark cases and shaping how Americans visualize justice.

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.

A legal scholar argues that the existing war powers framework may collapse in the event of a major power conflict

The legal tests presidents have used to avoid seeking congressional authorization were designed for weaker adversaries. This piece argues that those tests fail against similarly armed competitors, where even limited strikes risk significant escalation, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis over who has the authority to respond.

Listen to 'We the People,' a weekly podcast from the National Constitution Center

Hosted by Jeffrey Rosen, this weekly podcast from the National Constitution Center brings leading legal scholars together to debate major constitutional questions, presenting competing arguments in a balanced, nonpartisan format.

Senate confirmations for presidential nominees have become increasingly partisan and delayed

The Senate now takes longer than ever to confirm presidential nominees, with partisan gridlock stalling even routine appointments. The average confirmation time has nearly tripled since the 1980s, leaving key government roles vacant for months.

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.

Learn about the long and contested history of free speech in America

This podcast examines how American free speech protections evolved—from the Founders' debates to landmark Supreme Court rulings—and why the country arrived at one of the most expansive speech regimes in the world.