This essay series offers perspectives and insights from historians, political scientists, retired judges, and other experts in order to inform conversations about the idea of implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices. Under one proposed version, justices would serve 18-year terms, allowing for two appointments per presidential term.
Image
Perspectives on Supreme Court Term Limits
Scholars, retired judges, and others offer insights about a popular proposed Supreme Court reform.
-
Why Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices Make Sense
Term limits are good policy and can be implemented by statute, a former federal appeals court judge explains. -
Life Tenure Is a Rarity on State Supreme Courts
The U.S. Supreme Court should follow the example of 49 states, where justices don’t serve life terms. -
The Constitution Allows for Term-Limited Supreme Court Justices
A former federal judge discusses how term limits for Supreme Court justices would afford them the same status and opportunities that retired justices and federal judges currently enjoy. -
Life Tenure for U.S. Supreme Court Justices Is a Global Oddity with Clear Costs
Compared to other democracies, the United States is an outlier in granting life tenure to justices, producing diminishing returns and mounting costs. -
Would SCOTUS Term Limits Reduce Independence? Former State Supreme Court Justice Says No
A former state supreme court justice discusses why judges do not need a life term to be impartial. -
Lifetime Tenure for Supreme Court Justices Has Outlived Its Usefulness
While letting justices serve during “good behavior” was designed to encourage impartiality, it now tends to promote the opposite effect. Term limits offer one solution to this problem. -
A Transformed Supreme Court Requires Different Solutions
The Court has changed substantially since the 19th century, and the tradition of life tenure should be viewed in this historical context.
Stay up to date