Why Establishing Term Limits on the U.S. Supreme Court Should Be Avoided
Embedded Files
Nathan-Raegan Stickney (Politics, 2026)
Term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court should be avoided because they would undermine judicial independence, increase political influence, and create instability in legal doctrine. Instead, alternative solutions, such as legislative incentives for early retirement, can address concerns about aging justices without compromising the Court's integrity.
Common themes in American government, such as turnover and democratically elected officials, can be seen regularly throughout the country; however, one branch stands clear of this uniquely American thought: the federal judiciary. Due to Article III in the U.S. Constitution, all federal judges are appointed by the Senate for a lifetime term. This practice has stirred much debate and raises the question of whether term limits should be instituted for federal justices, especially those on the Supreme Court. Many legal scholars have quarreled with the institution of term limits for the Supreme Court, and see the lack of them either as a problem that hurts everyday Americans' rights and liberties or as a pillar of judicial power that allows for the integrity of judicial doctrine to remain standing. When questioning the status quo, it is reasonable to ask whether term limits should be instituted due to the many faults seen with age and extended time on the bench. However, it is also worth noting the inherent dangers associated with depriving the Supreme Court of this right which suggest the loss of the highest Court's power. Regardless of whatever side of the issue one takes, all can acknowledge some practical issues with life tenure on the Supreme Court. However, some solutions can help reduce age-related problems and financial burdens on the bench. All in all, term limits for the justices of The United States Supreme Court should not be instituted Doing so would destroy the Court's independence from public opinion and politics and diminish Americans' confidence in the institution by opening the door to consistently evolving judicial doctrine.
Across the U.S., significant conflict has surrounded the ideology and makeup of the Supreme Court. However, one aspect of the Supreme Court that has been under intense scrutiny from all sides is the functions and procedures these justices hold themselves to, including term limits or the lack thereof. Expanding on this issue, there are two main debating sides to choose from, arguing for or against term limits. On the side of not instituting term limits, some see that imposing restrictions on a Supreme Court Justice's ability to serve would hurt their ability to deliver judicial decisions correctly and without bias. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Justice James Harvie Wilkinson III argues in his article, Supreme Court Term Limits Wouldn't Solve Anything, that instituting term limits would further politicize the Court and that the lack of term limits in the federal judiciary make the U.S. more assertive and stand apart from the rest of the globe.1 This side of the argument is founded upon the premise that term limits give justices power and allow them to be separated from the other two branches of government, therefore being able to conduct judicial actions fairly and uninfluenced. In contrast, proponents of term limits view the perceived issues within the Court as a compelling argument for the government to implement such limits to preserve the integrity and stability of the institution In his article, "Why We Need Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices," legal expert Michael Hiltzik outlines how, during the introduction of the federal judiciary, the founding fathers could not expect justices to serve on the Court long due to life spans in the late 18th century, and that allowing for limits would remove any political motivation to change the ideology of the Court because of routine and scheduled judicial replacements.2 In totality, the side of implementing term limits for the Supreme Court argues that due to many issues associated with justices remaining on the bench for too long, term limits would provide an equitable solution to these problems and issues and remove political biases from the equation. Both sides of the "term-limit" debate assert that their argument and proposal would prevent political influence on the Court and allow the Supreme Court to remain more relevant and robust.
While it is reasonable to question whether term limits should be instituted for the Supreme Court, it is vital to consider the many dangers associated with creating this new regulation for Supreme Court justices to be subject to. First, radical changes to the Supreme Court could result in significant shifts in U.S. legal doctrine. In their article, "The Risks of Supreme Court Term Limits," Suzanna Sherry and Christopher Sundby state that, "A constantly changing Court, on the other hand, might make sudden and radical changes in doctrine."3 A Court with a consistently rotating bench would be more apt to make drastic legal changes quickly, similar to how the Court's ideology has shifted dramatically conservative in the wake of Donald Trump appointing three new justices during his first term as President. Second, if the Supreme Court practiced term limits, justices may be subject to more acts of bribery. Justice Wilkinson III makes the strong point that if justices know that they have a fixed amount of time in office, they might be more susceptible to bribery or compensation if the goals of that act of influence align with a justice's personal biases.4 Third, if term limits were applicable, doctrinal stability in the Court would be in a consistent state of danger and fear of being altered. To outline this example, Sherry and Sundby show through data research that if the Court had instituted 18-year term limits in 1974, Roe v. Wade would have been overruled, reinstated, and overruled again, all in 30 years.5 With this in mind, it is clear that doctrinal tradition would be in danger if term limits were present because monumental issues previously decided before the Court would be in a state of constant limbo with the fear of being overturned as well as developing cases that would also be subject to this scrutiny. As Sherry and Sundby said, "A case could go from being a sure winner to a sure loser throughout a single election.”6 Additionally, term limits would politicize the bench of the Supreme Court due to restrictions on the justices and the expanded power of the President. During a debate with Northwestern's James Lindgren over how the Constitution could be changed to alter the Supreme Court, Columbia Law School Professor Thomas W. Merrill outlined how adding term limits for Justices could increase the politicization of the Court. Merill said, "Term limits would recast the role of the Court to reflect the president's political views, not the more subtle role prescribed in the Constitution."7 Overall, the Court would become politicized because the inherent role of the highest justices in the land would be to fulfill a political objective instead of a judicial one. Therefore, it can be seen through many different lenses that adding term limits for Supreme Court justices would be deadly to the highest Court in the federal judiciary and would alter the Court's purpose and mission to interpret and defend the Constitution.
"With this in mind, it is clear that doctrinal tradition would be in danger if term limits were present because monumental issues previously decided before the Court would be in a state of constant limbo with the fear of being overturned as well as developing cases that would also be subject to this scrutiny."
While a lack of term limits presents some problems to the Supreme Court's efficacy, there is evidence for using other practical solutions to enact change without instituting term limits. One major factor the Court has dealt with and a significant motivator to institute term limits for the Supreme Court is the continued problem of mental and physical infirmity in the Court. In Ryan Scott and David Stras' article, "Retaining Life Tenure: The Case for a Golden Parachute," they call this issue out. They write that, "The serious problem of mental and physical infirmity (of the Supreme Court) demands reform.”8 Because the Supreme Court is a body largely dependent on justices using their legal knowledge and expertise to make judicial decisions, the fact that some of their mental and physical capacities cannot function at the highest level is alarming and prompts a response.
"In conclusion, there is precedent for instituting legislative changes to further frame judicial duty and allow for an off-ramp from the bench. These measures and practices should be studied and evaluated to understand how similar forms of change may be applied as opposed to dismantling the Supreme Court’s system of tenure."
However, in their article, Scott and Stras show how other types of reform to the Supreme Court have made desirable changes in how judges on the bench approach their career choices and timelines. For example, in 1937, Congress passed the Supreme Court Justice Act. It allowed many justices to achieve senior status earlier in their tenure, meaning they could receive benefits at a much younger age.9 It is proven that legislative changes such as these significantly impact the Court and allow justices the opportunity to retire at a much earlier age without fear of forgoing extended compensation. This can also be observed through Ross Solzenberg and James Lindgren’s rational-based research, which studies evidence that Supreme Court justices could be motivated to retire under the promise of receiving benefits. In their article, “Retirement And Death In Office Of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” they show how retirement for justices after 1937 became economically advantageous and made more sense to a justice rather than remaining on the bench past their prime. They write, “Retirement effects of age, health, tenure, and pension eligibility are usually understood to be instrumentally rational responses to the exigencies of time and treasure… In short, politicized departure is an example of Weberian value rationality, rather than instrumental rationality.”10 To summarize, based on financial factors, Supreme Court justices are more inclined to move towards retirement than political ones if given the opportunity. In addition to these arguments, which show that using other tactics besides term limits to encourage justices to vacate the bench work, Scott and Stras point out one significant benefit of life tenure that cannot be denied. They write, “Life tenure maximizes each judge's time on the bench.”11 While a justice should retire before dying for many reasons, it is also essential to maximize every justice's skills and ability during their time on the Court. In conclusion, there is precedent for instituting legislative changes to further frame judicial duty and allow for an off-ramp from the bench. These measures and practices should be studied and evaluated to understand how similar forms of change may be applied as opposed to dismantling the Supreme Court’s system of tenure.
In summary, the United States Supreme Court should not be subject to term limits because doing so would destroy the Court's independence from public opinion and politics while also prompting profound changes to the legal system set up in the United States. Term limits for the Supreme Court are controversial across the United States and usually divide people into two stark groups: those for limits and those against. Despite it being reasonable to ask whether term limits should be applied to the Supreme Court, it is crucial to understand the dangers that come from introducing such action, which include but are not limited to changing judicial doctrine and reframing the role of the Court. In response to the dangers presented by term limits, there is previous evidence of using other laws and actions to sway judges to resort to retiring before the startling effects of old age occur. With all this said, term limits are a band-aid to a more significant problem on the Supreme Court, and other resolutions to the issues brought on by extended tenures on the bench should be considered first.
End Notes
1 J. Harvie Wilkinson III, “Supreme Court term limits wouldn’t solve anything”, The Washington Post, October 22, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/18/supreme-Court-term-limits-wouldnt-solve-anything/.
2 Michael Hiltzik, “Why we need term limits for Supreme Court justices”, Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2024, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-05-04/column-supreme-Court-term-limit.
3 Suzanna Sherry and Christopher Sundby, The Risks of Supreme Court Term Limits, SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/academic-highlight-the-risks-of-supreme-court-term-limits/ (2019).
4 Wilkinson III, “Supreme Court term limits.”
5 Sherry and Sundby, The Risks of Supreme Court Term Limits.
6 Sherry and Sundby, The Risks of Supreme Court Term Limits.
7 Columbia Law School, “Pros and Cons of Potential Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices,” Accessed April 23, 2024, https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/pros-and-cons-potential-term-limits-supreme-Court-justices.
8 Ryan W. Scott & David R. Stras, Retaining Life Tenure: The Case for a Golden Parachute, 83 Washington University Law Quarterly 1397 (2006): 1439, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/394/.
9 Scott and Stras, “Retaining Life Tenure,” 1441.
10 Ross Solzenberg and James Lindgren, “Retirement And Death In Office Of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” Demography, vol. 47, no. 2 (Spring 2010): 292, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40800813?seq=1&cid=pdf-.
11 Scott and Stras, “Retaining Life Tenure,” 1422.
Report abuse