The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to limit the U.S. Supreme Court to nine justices. The measure failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments, with a vote of 212–206.
The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), proposed that the court consist of one chief justice and eight associate justices. While the Supreme Court has had nine seats since 1869, the number is currently set by statute rather than the Constitution. Congress has used its authority to change the size of the court seven times since 1789, with the bench ranging from five to ten justices during the 19th century.
Republicans supported the amendment as a means to prevent future "court packing," a term referring to the expansion of the court for political advantage. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) stated that a fixed number is necessary to prevent the court from becoming a "political palooza." Conversely, House Democratic leadership, including Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA), argued against the measure, stating it would relinquish a congressional power granted under Article I of the Constitution.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) described the vote as an effort to "freeze into place" the current court. Rep. Brad Knott (R-NC) said he wasn't surprised the vote was party-line, while Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) stated that voters are more concerned with the cost of living.
This vote affects the structure of the U.S. federal judiciary and the balance of power between branches of government. For residents of the United States, the outcome maintains the status quo where the size of the Supreme Court is determined by federal law rather than a constitutional mandate. Because the amendment failed, a future Congress retains the authority to pass legislation to increase or decrease the number of justices.
The court has remained at nine members for over 150 years. If a future Congress were to expand the court to 13 justices, as recently suggested by Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), it would lead to the appointment of four new justices.
Critics of the amendment argued that capping the number would strip the "American people's representatives" of a tool. Proponents, however, sought to discourage the use of the judiciary as a political instrument. With the amendment's failure in the House, the proposal will not move forward to the Senate or the states for ratification. The issue of court expansion is expected to remain a topic of debate in the upcoming midterm elections.