Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Proposes biennial appointments and term limits for Supreme Court justices.
The problem
The current system allows lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, creating vacancies at unpredictable times and potentially allowing justices to serve for decades.
The proposal
Establishes 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and creates a schedule for appointing one new justice every two years.
The impact
Supreme Court justices, presidents, Senate, and the general public through changes in judicial stability and predictability.
A biennial schedule would allow regular, planned appointments rather than waiting for vacancies. This creates consistency and reduces the importance of timing and chance in shaping the Court.
18-year terms would limit how long justices serve and balance generational representation. This could reduce concerns about justices serving into advanced age or for unusually long periods.
Regular appointments ensure more presidents have opportunities to shape the Court over time. This distributes judicial appointment power more widely across administrations and electoral cycles.
Supreme Court term limits likely require a constitutional amendment, which is extremely difficult to pass. This bill may be unconstitutional as written, requiring years of legal challenges.
Term limits could pressure justices to consider electoral and political timing of decisions. Fixed terms might reduce the independence justices currently have from political pressures.
Moving current justices to a new term system would create immediate practical and legal problems. The bill does not address how to handle current justices or transition fairly.
Changing a system in place for over 200 years could destabilize the Court during transition. The effects on judicial authority and public trust are uncertain.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.