House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently proposed broad changes to the U.S. Supreme Court following decisions regarding voting rights, campaign finance, presidential immunity, and abortion. The proposed reforms include expanding the number of justices, implementing 18-year term limits, and restricting the court’s ability to hear appeals related to presidential immunity. Additionally, the proposal calls for a mandatory ethics code and limits on the court’s emergency docket.
In response, President Trump has described the proposals as an attack on the court, while the Republican National Committee included formal opposition to any such changes in its 2024 platform. The debate occurs as Harvard Law professors Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan released a new book, "Supremacy," which examines the history of "horizontal review"—the power of federal judges to overturn acts of Congress. The authors note that while the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison is often cited as the origin of judicial review, its scope has been historically contested by figures such as James Madison and Abraham Lincoln.
The professors argue that the court's authority has historically been used to strike down federal laws such as child labor protections, workplace safety rules, and the federal income tax. However, the authors also observe that current efforts to limit the court's power could lead to different outcomes in a system where executive branch authority is expanding. They point to instances where the president has issued executive orders to bypass court rulings on tariffs and birthright citizenship as evidence of this shift.
A person would notice these changes in their legal rights and daily protections if the court were no longer the final arbiter of constitutional questions. For example, if horizontal review were restricted, a law passed by Congress regarding workplace safety or civil rights would remain in effect unless Congress itself repealed it or a future election changed the legislative majority. This would shift the power to decide the constitutionality of laws from the judiciary to elected officials and the voters who choose them. However, the exact timeline for when a citizen would see these changes depends on whether Congress acts to pass legislation or if constitutional amendments are pursued, neither of which has an established date.
The knock-on effects of these reforms could lead to a significant increase in executive branch power. If the court’s authority to review federal actions is diminished, the president might face fewer legal obstacles when issuing executive orders. This could set a precedent where the executive branch interprets its own constitutional limits without judicial oversight. What happens next depends on the outcome of future elections and legislative sessions; currently, the Republican platform opposes these changes, while Democratic leadership continues to advocate for them. No specific dates for votes or committee hearings on these proposals were reported.