Latest action: Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 84.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Sponsor
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Filed in the House.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Proposes constitutional amendment requiring Supreme Court have exactly nine justices.
The problem
Recent debates about expanding Supreme Court justices to influence decisions. This amendment would lock the number at nine permanently.
The proposal
Amends U.S. Constitution to establish nine justices as fixed requirement for Supreme Court composition.
The impact
Prevents future changes to Court size. Affects political power dynamics, judicial decisions, and constitutional amendment process.
Stops any president or Congress from adding justices to change Court decisions. Protects judicial independence from political pressure to expand the bench.
Keeps Court size consistent for future generations. Provides certainty about how many justices will decide important cases.
Nine justices has been standard since 1869. Honors long-standing institutional practice.
Removes Congress's power to adjust Court size for legitimate reasons. Makes it impossible to change even if future needs require it.
Requires two-thirds of both chambers plus three-fourths of states to approve. Very difficult to change if circumstances demand it later.
Freezes current ideological balance permanently. Future majorities cannot adapt Court composition to represent evolving values.
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.