Supreme Court

SCOTUS Term Limits May Be a Good Idea. But They Still Require a Constitutional Amendment.

Lifetime tenure for federal judges has been the constitutional practice since ratification.

Damon Root | 5.21.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Illustration: Envato)

Of the various ideas that have been proposed over the years to "reform" the U.S. Supreme Court, the call for imposing term limits on the justices has generally enjoyed the broadest bipartisan support.

At the same time, however, it would be among the most difficult of changes to bring about, as any such alteration to the federal judiciary would require a new constitutional amendment in order to go into effect.

Or would it? A recent New York Times op-ed made the case for SCOTUS term limits and confidently asserted that they "can be imposed through federal law," no pesky constitutional amendment required.

Is that correct?

You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.

Comments

This field is for validation........

© Reason.com