Rep. Ro Khanna on How Term Limits Would Restore ‘Stability and Impartiality’ to the Supreme Court

U.S. News: Should Supreme Court justices have term limits?

Rep. Ro Khanna: Our Founding Fathers gave Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments with the intention of ensuring impartiality and isolating justices from external political and social pressures. Since then, life expectancy in the U.S. has increased dramatically, and justices are serving on average 28 years on the court – the longest term length in our nation's history.

As a result, Supreme Court appointments have become increasingly politicized. Instead of picking the best candidate for the job, presidents are stacking the court with younger and younger justices who can serve lengthy terms and help achieve political goals. We can't have a national political crisis whenever there's a vacancy to fill on the Supreme Court. According to a new Gallup poll, only 25% of Americans have a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court – a record low. Term limits would help create the stability and impartiality that the Supreme Court urgently needs.

Last year, you introduced the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act. Tell us about this legislation and what it would do.

The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would create an 18-year term limit for justices appointed after the law is enacted. After their 18-year terms, justices would then be allowed to continue their service on lower courts. Going forward, the bill would create a regular process to allow presidents to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court every odd year – so two justices per four-year term. Justices would no longer have an incentive to strategize and plan their retirements around whichever party holds the White House. The goal of this bill is to restore judicial independence and ensure that justices are not too far out of step with the current generation.

Is such a move constitutional? Why take this approach compared to trying for a constitutional amendment?

Yes. Congress can pass a bill right now limiting the term that the next justice confirmed to the Supreme Court would serve. Article 3 of the Constitution states that judges and justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," which has traditionally been understood as a lifetime appointment. But the lifetime appointment does not have to be to the Supreme Court, and it can return to a circuit court after someone completes their 18-year term. In fact, the idea of Supreme Court term limits is supported by legal scholars across the ideological spectrum because it would not require amending the Constitution.

Are you worried about unintended consequences of Supreme Court justice term limits? Some have argued that such a move would hamper judicial independence, for example, or cause greater instability in decisions.

From hollowing out voting rights to the ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, it's clearer than ever that the nation's highest court has become politicized. We are now faced with a Supreme Court seeking to implement unpopular and anti-democratic decisions that the majority of Americans oppose. Americans across the political spectrum are losing faith in the court's ability to do its job. Eighteen-year term limits would bring stability to the Supreme Court by making appointments a routine process instead of a partisan battle every time there is a vacancy on the court.

Are you worried that term limits might further politicize the high court?

No. The regular appointment process will help judges rotate more frequently instead of justices waiting to retire based on which party controls the White House and holds a Senate majority. Confirmation hearings will also become an expected and regular part of the process instead of a life-and-death partisan fight that only further erodes the public's trust in the court.

Beyond term limits, what other changes would you propose to the Supreme Court?

I'm a cosponsor of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal's Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act, which will create a code of ethics for justices and prevent conflicts of interest. This is key to making sure justices are impartial and insulated from external political and financial interests. In addition to term limits, abiding by a code of ethics will help ensure impartiality and hold Supreme Court justices accountable for caving to outside pressure.

Who supports term limits?

A vast majority of Americans today support term limits for Supreme Court justices. A 2020 pollfrom Fix the Court and PSB found that 77% of Americans support restrictions on terms served by Supreme Court justices. Term limits proposals are supported by a range of conservative and liberal legal scholars and elected officials, and even Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan themselves have expressed some interest in term limits. It's a popular, bipartisan proposal that will help fix our partisan and broken appointment process and restore the public's trust.

In late 2021, President Biden's Supreme Court commission of legal scholars put out a report on the high court, noting among other things that term limits carry bipartisan support. What do you make of this?

I hope it brings our proposal to the attention of our colleagues in Congress. It's exciting to see this being supported at the executive level. The report notes that 18-year term limits are supported on a bipartisan basis. The idea has "considerable, bipartisan support." I look forward to seeing momentum for this proposal and our bill in the House continue to build.

What else would you like readers to know about the prospect or the benefits of term limits?

Reforms to the federal judiciary have been ongoing since the 18th century. This includes changes to the location of the court, the number of justices on the bench and the creation of appellate courts in 1891 to relieve the Supreme Court's caseload. Term limits for Supreme Court justices are not a radical concept – an overwhelming number of Americans support implementing them along with a range of scholars. It's long past time we take this realistic step to rebuild trust and independence in the Supreme Court.