Shawn Griffiths
WASHINGTON, D.C.—June 30 marked the end of the latest term for the Supreme Court and just like it always does, its most hotly debated and attention-grabbing cases were saved for the very end.
This term was no exception, tackling issues that will be talked about for days, months, and even years after the decisions:
- In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution (Trump v. Barbara).
- The court ruled that states can ban transgender athletes from competing in school sports, concluding that such a ban does not violate the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment. (West Virginia v P.B.J.)
- The court struck down limits on how much political parties can spend on campaign activities in coordination with candidates, ruling that such limits violated the parties’ First Amendment rights (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm'n)
But another debate has also resurfaced: Should term limits be imposed on Supreme Court justices?
The answer may depend on how people view the current court’s record. An individual dissatisfied with how the justices rule may think it means lifetime appointments are bad.
Or, a person’s view may be influenced by their general belief that all branches of government should have term limits. IVN asked its audience what they thought, and the question quickly garnered hundreds of responses.
One reader, Dylan Beabout, said, “Support if no chance for re-appointment.” He added: “Oppose with extreme degree [if] there's [a] chance of re-appointment. The insularity SCOTUS has from politics is too important.”
Mike Butcher wrote:
“We have already seen the filing of certain cases delayed intentionally, sometimes for over a year, when a particular Justice was nearing retirement and various replacements are being discussed. Attorneys on either side are waiting for the possible appointment of a Justice more favorable to their position. I’m not opposed to term limits but loopholes need to be identified and addressed first.”
Nick An said, “Every single office should have term limits.”
Several readers said they didn’t support term limits, per se, but age limits or mandatory retirement ages—such as 72. So, it would not be based on the number of terms served but end lifetime appointments.
The public argument is easy to understand. The actual path to reform is not so easy.
Supreme Court justices are not elected. They are not subject to recall. They do not face mandatory retirement ages. Once confirmed, they can remain on the bench for life unless they resign, retire, die, or are impeached and removed.
To understand why, look to the US Constitution. Article III says federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” language long understood to mean life tenure unless a judge voluntarily leaves or is impeached.
Technically, since the language is not explicit, Congress could try to pass a law. But even if enough members of Congress agreed to impose a mandatory 18- or 20-year limit on justices, the court could rule the law violates the Constitution.
So, how possible would term limits be?
The Cleanest Path: Amend the Constitution
The cleanest path does not mean an easy path.
The Supreme Court does not have authority over the Constitution. Its authority is to determine the constitutionality of existing laws that are challenged based on the justices’ legal interpretation of the Constitution.
Thus, the most “legally durable” way to impose Supreme Court term limits would be amend the Constitution itself. But since it is the Supreme Law of the Land, this process is intentionally brutal.
Congress would have to approve the proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate. Then three-fourths of the states—or 38—would have to ratify it. Neither the president nor the Supreme Court have a formal role in this process.
It is up to Congress and/or the states.
This brings up a second route: two-thirds of state legislatures can call for a convention to propose constitutional amendments. But this path has never been used, and it raises its own political and legal questions about how such a convention would operate.
In other words, any amendment to the Constitution—term limits or other—would require something Washington has almost forgotten how to produce: broad, lasting agreement across party and state lines.
It is not impossible. But Congress has not passed a constitutional amendment since 1978. There is also the question of what the amendment would look like. What term limits would be imposed? Would current justices be affected by it? Etc.
One common model is an 18-year term with a new appointment every two years. Under that system, each president would generally receive two appointments per four-year term instead of relying on retirements, deaths, and political timing.
This model was brought up multiple times in the IVN Facebook comment section.
Opponents argue that life tenure is a safeguard against judges becoming politicians in robes. If justices are regularly swapped out by an executive branch that keeps swinging between two parties, it could threaten the independence of the judiciary even more.
In February, US Rep. Tom Barrett introduced a constitutional amendment that would impose 20-year terms on federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, while applying the change only to future appointees.
“Our federal courts are responsible for upholding our most fundamental rights and liberties,” Barrett said. “Lifetime appointments were designed to protect judicial independence, but instead have too often emboldened judges to wield their enormous power long after they should have retired.
The Faster Path: Congress Tries it By Statute
The route many people who support Supreme Court term limits prefer is a law passed by Congress. It would be faster and would require less barriers to implementation than a Constitutional amendment.
But faster does not mean full proof.
One idea supporters think is feasible is that Congress could pass a law creating fixed terms of active service on the Supreme Court—say, for example, 18 years—then move justices into a form of “senior status” afterward.
Under this model, a justice would not be removed from the federal judiciary. They would still hold an Article III judicial office and could potentially hear lower-court cases, fill in for recusals, or perform administrative duties.
The argument is that this would preserve “good Behaviour” tenure while preventing any one justice from occupying an active Supreme Court seat indefinitely.
While supporters say Congress already has authority to structure the federal judiciary and has previously used senior-status systems for judges, critics see a major constitutional problem. And it all comes to language.
Article III does not say federal judges may keep their jobs until Congress decides they should become semi-retired. It says they hold their offices during good behavior. The Library of Congress’s Constitution Annotated describes that protection as life tenure.
Again, unless a judge resigns voluntarily or is impeached.
The Congressional Research Service has similarly concluded that most commentators believe Congress could not impose a term or age limit on Supreme Court justices without a constitutional amendment.
In other words, a statutory change by law would almost certainly trigger a constitutional challenge. And who would have the final say over whether Congress can limit Supreme Court service?
The Supreme Court.
The Term Limit Debate Continues
On paper, support for term limits is there. A February 2026 Strength in Numbers/Verasight poll found that two-thirds of Americans support 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Also of note, a June 2025 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that only 20% of Americans viewed the court as politically neutral, while 58% disagreed. It did not ask about term limits but offered context into how the public views the Supreme Court.
Whether someone supports term limits on the court or not, there are political realities that make such a reform a tall hurdle to clear in a hyper-partisan environment that incentivizes division over every issue.
The Supreme Court has lifetime tenure because the Constitution says judges hold office during good behavior. Changing that reality requires either changing the Constitution itself or persuading the court that Congress has such authority.
The comments on IVN’s Facebook page reflect how broad this debate can be, but it also reflects something real: Independent-minded voters are losing trust at all levels of government because they are frustrated with a system that puts everything in terms of “red versus blue.”
Even the debate over the Supreme Court (imposing term limits, adding more justices, etc.) quickly becomes an ideological fight between two opposing sides. Meanwhile, the nuance of the issue gets lost entirely.