For much of our nation’s history, the Supreme Court played a modest role in our system of checks and balances, and was bound by the principle of judicial restraint. That is no longer the case. Over the past few decades, the Court has become defined by a series of polarizing decisions that have taken away constitutional rights and grossly expanded presidential power. At the same time, public confidence in the institution has reached historic lows: For example, in a 2026 poll, only 22 percent of voters had a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence in the Court.
Many of the Court’s decisions have led to confusion and chaos in the states — in areas including partisan gerrymandering, gun policies, and reproductive rights — affecting state legislatures in the process. They too should play a role in reforming the Court. A recent example of both the Court’s outsized role and how its decisions can immediately cause disarray in states is Louisiana v. Callais, which eviscerated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. This ruling is not only a seismic shift in civil rights and election law but is also a display of egregious disregard for the legislative branch which wrote, passed, and repeatedly reauthorized the landmark law with strong bipartisan support.
The Court has also been embroiled in numerous ethics scandals and contentious confirmation battles in recent years. Together they paint a picture of a Court that is not functioning as it should. That is a serious problem for our democracy because much of the Court’s legitimacy comes from the public’s trust in the integrity and fairness of the institution.
Reform is urgently needed to create a more accountable Court. One such reform is to institute 18-year term limits for the justices, a highly popular proposal that enjoys majority support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Term limits would ensure that no single person has too much power for too long. Justices would sit in staggered terms of active service and take “senior status” after 18 years. Senior justices would not have to leave judicial service entirely — their duties would just change. This cycle would create a new vacancy on the bench every two years so that each president would have two, and only two, appointments during a four-year term.
As more than 50 constitutional scholars and retired federal and state judges have affirmed, Congress has the power to impose term limits by statute in a way that comports with the Constitution. Indeed, leading bills in both the House and Senate have already been introduced in this Congress.
State lawmakers have a role to play, too. At a time of plummeting public trust in the Court, a cascade of ethics scandals, a series of undemocratic rulings, and the Court’s self-aggrandizement of power, state lawmakers should call on Congress to enact term limits for Supreme Court justices. This will infuse the court with more democratic accountability — a principle that we should all expect from an institution with power over the entire country. State legislators often introduce resolutions expressing support of certain policies, including, for example, calls to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It is well within states’ role as key participants in our democratic system. As such, state lawmakers should introduce the below model resolution and join the calls for this urgently needed reform.
