A new proposal from House Democrats to end lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices has intensified the national debate over judicial power, ethics, and the legitimacy of the nation’s highest court, as public trust in the institution remains near historic lows following years of politically explosive rulings and mounting ethics controversies.
Rep. Johnny Olszewski of Maryland introduced the Reform of Bench Eligibility (ROBE) Act this week, proposing 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices in place of the lifetime appointments currently granted under the existing system. The legislation would establish a regular rotation of appointments approximately every two years and would apply not only to future justices, but also to sitting members of the court through what Olszewski’s office described as a “fair and orderly transition.”
The proposal arrives amid intensifying scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which has issued a series of rulings on abortion rights, presidential power, and voting rights that critics say have dramatically reshaped American law while fueling perceptions that the court has become increasingly ideological and politically insulated.
“Faith in the court depends on its legitimacy as a fair and independent institution,” Olszewski said in a press release announcing the legislation. “Recent rulings that have thrown out decades of legal precedent, combined with ethically dubious behavior by sitting judges, are testing that faith.”
The Maryland Democrat directly referenced controversies involving relationships between justices and wealthy political donors, adding that justices “should not be hobnobbing at White House dinners and flying on the private jets of friends who have business before the Court.”
All six conservative members of the Supreme Court attended a White House state dinner last week, an unusual appearance that drew renewed criticism from court reform advocates. Several justices have also faced scrutiny in recent years after reports revealed they had accepted luxury travel, gifts, and financial benefits from wealthy benefactors connected to conservative political networks.
Olszewski argued that the current structure of lifetime tenure has encouraged strategic retirements and intensified partisan battles over appointments.
“By establishing term limits, we can reduce the political gamesmanship surrounding appointments, restore balance to the process, and strengthen the integrity of the Court,” he said.
The legislation faces extremely long odds in Congress. Republicans, who control both the House and Senate, have largely opposed efforts to impose term limits or otherwise restructure the court. President Donald Trump, who appointed three current justices during his first term, would also need to sign the measure into law.
Conflicting interpretations have also emerged regarding whether such a proposal would require a constitutional amendment. Olszewski’s supporters argue that Article III allows Congress to regulate the judiciary through legislation. Other legal interpretations cited in reporting on the proposal contend that because the Constitution provides federal judges tenure during “good Behaviour,” any direct limit on Supreme Court service would likely require a constitutional amendment ratified by the states.
Under the constitutional amendment framework described in reporting surrounding the bill, the proposal would require approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress before being ratified by three-quarters of the states, a process that could take years even under favorable political conditions.
Still, the legislation reflects a rapidly expanding movement for Supreme Court reform that has gained traction across ideological lines as public confidence in the judiciary continues to erode.
A Public Religion Research Institute survey conducted in 2025 found broad bipartisan support for term limits on Supreme Court justices, including 85 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of independents, and even 67 percent of Republicans. Another poll conducted earlier this year by Strength In Numbers and Verasight found that 65 percent of Americans support term limits for Supreme Court justices, while only 15 percent oppose them.
At the same time, trust in the court itself has continued falling. An NBC News poll released in March found that only 22 percent of registered voters said they had either “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence in the Supreme Court. Gallup polling released last year similarly found trust levels near historic lows.
“That level of trust is among the lowest in Gallup’s trend, essentially matching the low point of 47 percent from 2022,” Gallup said.
Analysts have tied the decline to a combination of ethics controversies and politically divisive rulings from the conservative majority, particularly the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, subsequent rulings weakening voting rights protections, and the court’s presidential immunity decision, which critics argued granted sweeping legal protections to presidents accused of criminal conduct while in office.
Former President Joe Biden endorsed Supreme Court term limits shortly after the immunity ruling, calling for reforms that would “ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity,” making appointments “more predictable and less arbitrary.”
The growing reform movement has also been fueled by the increasing length of Supreme Court service. A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy found that justices now serve significantly longer terms than in earlier periods of American history, transforming each appointment into a generational political battle with consequences lasting decades.
Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, has now served for more than 34 years, making him the longest-serving current justice. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, both appointed by President George W. Bush, have also served for more than two decades. Under the ROBE Act, all three would exceed the proposed 18-year limit.
The extended tenure of modern justices has dramatically increased the political stakes surrounding nominations and retirements, according to constitutional scholars.
Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, said in 2023 that the current structure has created “an arms race for people to maximize the number of years of their influence.”
“Justices time their resignations in political ways, and that’s not great,” Amar added.
Questions surrounding potential retirements from the current court have intensified in recent months. CBS News reported that neither Thomas nor Alito plans to retire this year, despite recurring speculation due to their ages and the Republican control of the White House and Senate.
Attention has particularly focused on Alito after reports surrounding the upcoming release of his book, So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country, scheduled for publication during the opening week of the Supreme Court’s next term. Some observers suggested the timing could indicate retirement plans, while others dismissed that interpretation as speculative.
Trump himself acknowledged the possibility of additional Supreme Court appointments during an interview last month.
“It could be two, could be three, could be one. I don’t know—I’m prepared to do it,” he said.
The president has simultaneously intensified his own criticism of the court after several rulings that did not align with his administration’s priorities, including disputes over tariffs and executive authority.
“No, certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for,” Trump wrote in an April Truth Social post.
The clash illustrates the increasingly unstable political position of the Supreme Court, which now faces attacks from both conservatives and liberals for sharply different reasons. Democrats argue the conservative supermajority has become an ideological vehicle for advancing right-wing policy goals, while Trump and his allies have lashed out when even conservative justices fail to fully support executive actions.
The ROBE Act is not the first congressional attempt to impose term limits on the court. Last year, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025, which also proposed staggered 18-year terms and regular appointments every two years. However, Khanna’s legislation exempted sitting justices and preserved their lifetime tenure, unlike the new proposal from Olszewski.
That distinction could become one of the central constitutional flashpoints surrounding the legislation. Critics of the ROBE Act are expected to argue that retroactively applying term limits to sitting justices would violate constitutional protections and further politicize the judiciary. Supporters counter that the current system has already become deeply politicized through strategic retirements, ideological confirmation battles, and the concentration of judicial power in a handful of unelected officials serving for decades.
For now, the proposal remains unlikely to advance under the current balance of power in Washington. But the legislation underscores how Supreme Court reform, once considered politically fringe, has moved closer to the center of national political debate as trust in the institution continues to weaken across the political spectrum.
“Justices should not be hobnobbing at White House dinners and flying on the private jets of friends who have business before the Court,” Olszewski said.
COMMENTS