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 a constitutional amendment to require the Supreme Court have exactly nine justices.
The problem
Recent debates about expanding or changing the Supreme Court's size have created uncertainty about the court's structure and judicial independence.
The proposal
Amends the Constitution to set the Supreme Court at nine justices, making any future size changes require another constitutional amendment.
The impact
Affects the Supreme Court's composition, limits presidential power to reshape the court, and impacts judicial decisions for all Americans.
Locks the court size into the Constitution, preventing either political party from suddenly adding justices to gain advantage. This protects the court from becoming a tool of whichever party controls Congress.
Makes it much harder for a president and Congress to expand the court to change its rulings. Requires amending the Constitution instead of just passing a regular law.
The court has had nine justices since 1869. This amendment preserves a long-standing American tradition and prevents radical changes to institutions.
If the country grows or workload increases, the court cannot adjust its size without a very difficult constitutional amendment. Limits future generations' ability to adapt the court.
The amendment prevents rebalancing the court if it becomes seen as ideologically skewed. Citizens unhappy with the court's direction cannot fix it through normal political processes.
Using the Constitution for specific court size locks in a particular number forever. Normal laws are easier to change if circumstances warrant it.
The proposal comes after debates about court expansion, suggesting it is partisan rather than solving a genuine structural problem that affects all Americans equally.
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.