WASHINGTON — As public opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court flags amid decisions that have roiled the nation, Democrats renewed calls ahead of the midterms to expand the high court, while House Republicans attempted but failed to pass a constitutional amendment this week that proposes to cap the number at nine.

Just Monday, the court gave the green light to President Donald Trump’s ballroom expansion and is expected to issue a major ruling soon on Trump’s vote-by-mail order that could throw the midterm elections into chaos. 

The House voted 212-206 Wednesday on a constitutional amendment to codify the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. A two-thirds majority was needed.

One Democrat, Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, supported the Republican-led resolution.

Over the weekend, Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said, “I think that we are in a position now that calls from some significant actions taken by the Congress.

“And we ought to expand — and 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court,” the 17-term House Democrat said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.”

Clyburn said conservatives on the court, specifically naming Justice Clarence Thomas, have decided to “take the country back” in time.

In late April, the Supreme Court’s conservative super majority struck down a protection in the Voting Rights Act that assured the vote of majority Black congressional districts could not be diluted.

In June, the court upheld the Constitution’s 14th Amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship, but the decision was not unanimous. Four justices dissented, arguing that there are some exceptions for certain babies born to immigrants on U.S. soil, depending on their parents’ immigration status.

Clyburn is not the only Democrat to call for court expansion. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, also advocated for a 13-justice high court during July 31 comments at the National Urban League meeting in Nashville, Tennessee.

Other high-profile Democrats have said in recent weeks and months they want to see change at the Supreme Court, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

As for public opinion, Pew Research found that just over half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court, according to survey results published July 30, a near historic low.

A Gallup poll published July 28 found confidence in the Supreme Court at a record low of 33%.

Constitutional amendment

While many Democrats’ answer to the dissatisfaction is to add more justices, the House Republican resolution proposed a constitutional amendment that would codify the number of justices at nine.

The resolution would also have to pass the Senate to begin the seven-year clock for three-fifths of states, or 38, to ratify it.

House Speaker Mike Johnson at a Tuesday press conference accused the Democratic Socialists of America, whom he referred to as the “communist socialists in the Democrat party who are taking the party over,” of wanting “to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“We’re gonna make sure that doesn’t happen,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democratic Socialists of America, just a few. They’re gonna get a chance to show us tomorrow. … Nine justices has worked well.”

Johnson added expanding the court risks turning into “a political palooza.”

His office did not respond to a States Newsroom request for comment on whether he believes the resolution would succeed or if leadership has put the bill on the floor calendar to send a message ahead of the November midterm elections in which control of the House is at stake.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced the resolution in January 2025. The resolution was referred to the House calendar on July 6 of this year. Biggs won the GOP primary for Arizona governor in July.

Biggs argued in early June that his resolution would protect the court from people “threatening to pack this iconic American institution to ensure favorable outcomes for their causes.”

“This action will protect the Court’s legitimacy, preserve the checks and balances that safeguard our cherished freedoms, and ensure every American’s rights remain secure – no matter who holds political power,” he said in a statement after the House Committee on the Judiciary advanced the legislation. 

Rep. Derrick Schmidt, R-Kansas, signed on as a cosponsor in early June, and Rep. Rick Allen, R-Ga., on July 16. Both men are in solidly Republican districts, according to the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

‘Magical thinking’

Not all think that expanding the Supreme Court or restricting its size to nine justices will fix what many see as serious flaws.

Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonprofit Fix the Court, said both ideas are “pretty cynical positions.”

“I think it just is part of this magical thinking that all of a sudden we’re going to have 13 justices and everything is going to be okay in the federal judiciary. That voting rights will come back, abortion rights will come back, and that’s not how cases reach the court,” said Roth, whose organization advocates for “non-ideological fixes.”

On the “keep nine” side, Roth said there’s a belief that the court now has a “perfect construct.”

“It’s not,” he said, adding “I don’t see why keep nine is a good idea other than to try to rile up the base.”

Instead Roth wants to see term limits gradually phased in over time.

“Every democracy that’s younger than ours has term limits or age limits for their apex court justices. Forty-nine out of 50 states have term limits, age limits, or retention elections for their apex courts,” he told States Newsroom in an interview Tuesday.

The Supreme Court lacks term limits “because King George was firing colonial judges, and so some monarch’s mental decrepitude shouldn’t be a reason for maintaining something 250 years later,” Roth said, referring to Great Britain’s King George III at-will firing of judges in the colonies.

Founders of the United States wrote into the Constitution several guardrails against influencing the court, including giving judges lifetime appointments, according to the American Bar Association.

Roth supports legislation introduced last year by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would limit a justice’s Supreme Court service to 18 years, and would give each president a chance to nominate one justice during their first and third years in office.

That means the number of justices could fluctuate at times, depending on retirements or deaths.

“It’s basically like you add a new justice every two years, and you know, if there are 10 or 11 justices for 10 or 15 years, so be it,” he said.

Democrats “came to the number four because that would give Democrats a 7-6 majority. It’s not like they’re pulling four out of thin air,” he said, referring to advocates who want 13 justices.

The system would be “fair” and “regularized,” Roth added.

“​​So we don’t have a system where Trump gets three (nominations) in one term, and then Jimmy Carter got zero in his one term.”

Eight cosponsors, all Democrats, joined Khanna’s legislation. They include Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, Sean Casten, D-Ill., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., Juan Vargas, D-Calif., Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz.

Both Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have sponsored other legislation to create term limits for Supreme Court justices.

Johnson’s bill, first introduced in 2023, has 86 Democratic cosponsors. 

Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Alex Padilla, D-Calif., joined Whitehouse to reintroduce their term limits bill in July. 

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley told reporters Tuesday in Madison that he would not vote for a change in the state Constitution to prohibit using the partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee. 

Voters in November will have the final say on the constitutional amendment proposal that could further limit Wisconsin’s uniquely strong executive partial veto power. The proposal was introduced in reaction to Gov. Tony Evers’ 2023 state budget partial veto that extended annual school revenue limit increases for 400 years.

The Milwaukee County executive, who has won the endorsement of Evers, said he would “absolutely not” vote for the amendment. He said that what Republicans in the Legislature are “trying to do is just rig the system.”

The partial veto power has been a recurring issue throughout the Evers’ two terms in office. He often used it in creative ways to shape policy sent to him by Republican lawmakers, who in return worked painstakingly to make their legislation veto-proof. 

In 2023, Republicans were shocked to find that Evers had used the power on the state budget to increase school districts’ ability to raise property taxes. Republicans and their allies have often referred to the governor’s action as implementing a “400-year tax increase,” though the veto did not automatically mean taxes would increase. The increase in revenue limits allows schools the option to bring in additional revenue through property taxes or state revenue, though Republicans have declined to provide funds to backfill the revenue limit increases. School boards still have to opt in to increase property taxes. 

That use of the veto pen was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2025 as constitutional, which led to Republicans’ decision to put the issue up to voters. Constitutional amendment proposals in Wisconsin must pass two consecutive sessions of the state Legislature before they go to voters for the final say. 

Crowley, who previously served in the state Assembly while Democrats held a minority of seats, noted his time in the state Legislature.

“What I’ve seen from the Republican-controlled legislatures is that, anytime that there’s a stop gap on all the policies, dangerous policies, that they want to push through, they want to eliminate the power of the governor,” Crowley said. 

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor, has made repealing the veto alongside freezing property taxes a central promise of his campaign. It was one of the points in his housing plan and one of the points of his affordability plan released on Tuesday. 

Tiffany said in a statement about his plan that “Wisconsin families work hard for every dollar they earn, but government at every level keeps taking more” and that “property taxes are too high, utility bills have soared and everyday purchases cost more.” He criticized Crowley for supporting a sales tax increase in Milwaukee, which was implemented to help address financial challenges in the state’s largest county, and recent property tax increases in the county. 

Tiffany told the Wisconsin Examiner in a statement that he plans to vote for the constitutional amendment and promised not to use the veto pen to increase taxes or fees.

“No governor should have the power to raise your taxes with the stroke of a pen,” Tiffany said in a statement. “David Crowley opposes this referendum because he wants the authority to raise taxes on Wisconsin families statewide, and that should scare every taxpayer who has paid attention to his record in Milwaukee County. Crowley has never met a tax hike he didn’t like, and now he wants a veto pen to make it even easier to take more of your money. We’ve already seen the damage this kind of unchecked power can do. It’s how Wisconsin got stuck with a 400-year property tax increase.”

Crowley said Tiffany has “done absolutely nothing to lower costs here in the state of Wisconsin.” 

“[Tiffany] has not grown a backbone. He has not stood up to this particular president, and he hasn’t authored one particular bill that’s actually helping out Wisconsinites. Unfortunately, he has been carrying the water of Donald Trump,” Crowley said. 

Crowley also said he would use the partial veto power as governor to ensure that “there’s no harm being placed or forced on Wisconsinites.” 

If passed, this would not be the first time the Wisconsin executive veto power has been restricted. During his first term in office, the state Supreme Court limited  the governor’s veto power after a lawsuit challenging his vetoes on the 2019 state budget.

The executive partial veto power has also been previously been restricted through constitutional amendments. In 1990, voters approved prohibiting the “Vanna White” veto, eliminating single letters within words, and in 2008, voters approved eliminating the “Frankenstein veto” — the ability for governors to create new sentences by combining parts of two or more sentences. 

Voters will see the question on their ballots on Nov. 3: “Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?”

UPDATE: This story has been updated to include comment from U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany.