Democrats Push 18-Year Supreme Court Term Limits and Forced Retirement at 75

Preview

A coalition of Senate Democrats has reintroduced legislation that would impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices and force retirement at age 75, aiming to restore public trust in an institution whose approval rating has plummeted to historic lows. But the bill faces steep political odds — and raises a fundamental constitutional question: does Congress have the power to do this?

WASHINGTON – The image circulating online is real: Senate Democrats Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Alex Padilla (D-CA) have reintroduced the Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act, which would effectively impose 18-year active service terms on justices and create a predictable, regular appointment schedule .

But the legislation is only one part of a broader reform push. Separately, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel — a potential 2028 presidential hopeful — has called for a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, as well as for members of Congress and the president . And in the House, Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) has introduced a constitutional amendment — the ROBE Act — that would similarly end lifetime appointments, but would require a far more difficult ratification process .

Together, these proposals reflect a growing bipartisan discontent with a Court that many Americans believe has become too politicized, too unaccountable, and too entrenched in a system of lifetime tenure that no other major democracy allows .

What the Democrats Are Proposing

The Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act would :

Provision	Details
18-year active terms	Justices would serve 18 years of active service, then transition to "senior status" — still holding office but no longer sitting on the nine-member Court
Biennial appointments	A new justice would be nominated within the first 120 days of the first and third years of each presidential term — meaning each president would appoint two justices per term
Appellate jurisdiction limit	Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases — the vast majority of the Court's docket — while senior justices would handle original jurisdiction cases and fill in when conflicts arise
No retroactive effect	The bill would not apply to current justices; it would take effect at the start of the first new presidential term after enactment

The legislation is endorsed by the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Women's Law Center Action Fund, Public Citizen, CREW, Alliance for Justice, and more than a dozen other advocacy groups .

The Age 75 Proposal: A Separate Push

While the Senate bill focuses on term limits, the mandatory retirement age of 75 has emerged as a separate but related reform idea. Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat considering a 2028 presidential run, has explicitly called for a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all branches of government: the executive branch (including the president and Cabinet), the legislative branch, and the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court .

"And that would be in the legislative branch, it'd be in the executive branch — including the Cabinet — and it'd also be in the Supreme Court, and all the federal courts," Emanuel said .

If such a rule were in place today, Justice Clarence Thomas, 77, and Justice Samuel Alito, 75, would be forced to retire immediately, while Chief Justice John Roberts, 70, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 71, would be nearing the cutoff .

Why Now? The Crisis of Trust

The push for reform comes amid a crisis of public confidence in the Supreme Court. Polling shows that:

Two out of three Americans support term limits for justices .

A PRRI poll found that 67% of Republicans, 85% of Democrats, and 76% of independents support term limits .

An NBC News poll found that only 22% of registered voters have a "great deal" or "quite a bit" of confidence in the Court — with 38% saying they have "very little" or "no" confidence at all .

Gallup reported that trust in the Court is near its historic low of 47% from 2022 .

Analysts link the decline to a series of high-profile rulings on abortion, voting rights, and presidential power, as well as ethics controversies involving justices' finances and political ties . The Court's 6-3 conservative majority has become a flashpoint for Democrats, who argue that the institution has been "captured" by right-wing billionaires and special interests .

The Constitutional Question: Can Congress Do This?

The most contentious issue surrounding the term-limits proposal is whether it can be enacted by statute — requiring only a simple majority in Congress — or whether it requires a constitutional amendment, which would need a two-thirds vote in both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of the states .

The Case for Statutory Authority

Proponents, including the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate the Court's structure and jurisdiction . They point to:

The Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes Congress "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States" .

Historical precedent: In the early 19th century, Congress had the Court skip a whole year of sessions. It has also repeatedly set the number of justices, the timing of the Court's term, and its jurisdiction .

The Booth v. United States (1934) ruling, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that judges retain their offices even after taking senior status. Congress may not abolish a judge's office, but it may "lighten judicial duties" .

Under the term-limits proposal, justices would not lose their lifetime appointments. They would simply transition to "senior status" — continuing to hold office, draw their salary, and serve on lower courts, but no longer sitting on the nine-member Supreme Court for appellate cases .

The Case for a Constitutional Amendment

Opponents — and some legal scholars — argue that the Constitution's Article III provision that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" means life tenure is unalterable by statute. They contend that any change to the tenure of Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment .

Rep. Olszewski's ROBE Act takes this approach, proposing a constitutional amendment that would apply to current justices and include provisions for a "fair and orderly transition" . However, as a constitutional amendment, it faces an even steeper climb: it has six Democratic cosponsors and a 0% chance of being enacted according to GovTrack's prognosis .

The Political Reality: A Long Shot

Even supporters acknowledge the legislation faces overwhelming odds in the current Congress, where Republicans control both the House and Senate . Sen. Whitehouse himself has been blunt about the prospects:

"There's a pretty slim chance of Republicans going for it, since the same billionaires who captured the court also run their party," he said .

Whitehouse said his strategy is less about legislative outcomes and more about "keeping trying the case with the public" — keeping the issue of term limits top of mind for American voters . He suggested that Democratic control of Congress after the November midterms could give him the opportunity he needs to push the measure forward .

The Broader Reform Wave

The term-limits proposal is just one of about a dozen reform measures Democrats have introduced in recent months. Others include :

Expanding the Court's size from nine to 13 justices (court-packing)

Creating an enforceable ethics code with actual consequences for violations

Requiring justices to place certain assets into blind trusts

Establishing standards for the Court's emergency "shadow docket" — which critics say allows the Court to rule on consequential matters with limited record and brief explanations

The Supreme Court adopted a code of ethical guidelines in 2023 under pressure from the public and Congress — but critics have long pointed out that the agreement lacks any enforcement mechanism .

What the Viral Graphic Gets Right

What the Image Suggests	What's Actually Happening
Democrats propose 18-year term limits	Yes — the BATL Act is a real bill reintroduced in July 2026
Democrats propose forced retirement at 75	This is a separate proposal from Rahm Emanuel, not part of the Senate bill
The bill has bipartisan support	Polling shows Americans broadly support term limits, but Republican lawmakers have not embraced it
The bill is likely to pass	It has virtually no chance in the current Republican-controlled Congress

The Bottom Line

The image captures a real legislative push by Senate Democrats to reform the Supreme Court — but it also reflects a political reality that is far more complicated than a simple yes-or-no question.

The Court is at a crossroads. With public trust at historic lows, a conservative supermajority that has reshaped American law, and a growing sense that the institution is both unaccountable and out of touch, the pressure for change is unlikely to fade — regardless of whether the current bills become law.

Would you back this? The answer may depend less on the merits of the proposal and more on whether you believe a Supreme Court that has served for generations is a feature — or a bug — of American democracy.