Home  /  Recent Bills  /  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.
HOUSE · HJRES 1 119 CONGRESS

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.

INTRODUCED
January 03, 2025
POLICY AREA
Law
STATUS
On motion to suspend the rules and pass Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 212 - 206 (Roll no. 293).
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗
This is a joint resolution, not an ordinary bill

A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. Bill vs. resolution, explained →

Summary

This joint resolution, H.J. Res. 1 of the 119th Congress, proposes a constitutional amendment to fix the size of the Supreme Court of the United States at nine justices – one chief justice and eight associate justices. Currently, the Constitution does not specify the number of justices; it is set by congressional statute, which has been nine since 1869, though it has varied in the past. The resolution follows theArticle V process for constitutional amendments: it must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, then submitted to the states for ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures (or conventions) within seven years. If ratified, it would become part of the Constitution, preventing any future change to the Court's size by simple legislation. Proponents argue it would depoliticize the Court and prevent 'court-packing' schemes, while opponents contend it unnecessarily constitutionalizes a matter best left to legislative discretion and could hinder efforts to reform the Court in response to perceived ideological imbalances or workload pressures.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Provides a safeguard against any future attempts by either party to politicize the Court's size for short-term gain.
+Ensures consistency in the Court's composition, which could enhance public confidence in the institution's stability.
+Aligns with the long-standing historical precedent of a nine-justice Court, which has functioned effectively since the post-Civil War era.
+May reduce inflammatory rhetoric and threats of court-packing, contributing to a less toxic political environment around judicial appointments.
+Establishes a clear, neutral rule that applies equally to future Democratic and Republican administrations.
MIGHT OPPOSE
Unnecessarily elevates a statutory matter to the Constitution, making it harder to adjust the Court's size in response to legitimate needs such as increased caseload or population growth.
Appears to be a partisan countermove to Republican-appointed justices' perceived ideological dominance, rather than a good-government reform.
Could be seen as entrenching the current 6-3 conservative supermajority on the Court by preventing reforms that might balance it.
The seven-year ratification window and high thresholds may render the amendment ineffective or fail entirely, wasting legislative effort.
Diverts focus from substantive Court reforms, such as ethics rules, term limits, or jurisdictional changes, that address real concerns about judicial accountability and effectiveness.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Ensures the Supreme Court remains at nine justices, preventing future Democratic attempts to 'pack' the Court for ideological advantage.
+Promotes stability and continuity in the judiciary by removing the Court's size from partisan political battles.
+Reflects historical practice, as nine justices has been the norm since 1869, reinforcing tradition.
+Limits federal government power by requiring a supermajority constitutional amendment process to alter the Court's structure.
+Protects the independence of the judiciary from legislative or executive interference aimed at influencing Court outcomes.
MIGHT OPPOSE
May be unnecessary since the nine-justice Court has been stable for over 150 years, making the amendment a solution in search of a problem.
Could be perceived as a reactive measure to recent Democratic Court expansion proposals, potentially increasing partisan tensions rather than reducing them.
Constitutionalizing the Court's size might prevent legitimate future reforms if the Court's workload significantly increases or demographic changes necessitate adjustment.
Diverts attention and resources from other pressing national issues that require constitutional or legislative action.
The rigid amendment process may make it too difficult to adapt the judiciary to future societal needs.

History

Sep 02, 2026
On motion to suspend the rules and pass Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 212 - 206 (Roll no. 293).
Sep 02, 2026
Failed of passage/not agreed to in House On motion to suspend the rules and pass Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 212 - 206 (Roll no. 293).
Sep 02, 2026
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5459-5460)
Sep 02, 2026
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
Sep 02, 2026
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 1.
Sep 02, 2026
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5443-5451; text: CR H5443)
Sep 02, 2026
Mr. Biggs (AZ) moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.
Jul 06, 2026
Jul 06, 2026
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-732.
Jul 06, 2026
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-732.
Jun 03, 2026
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 8.
Jan 03, 2025
Jan 03, 2025
Jan 03, 2025
Introduced in House