The Case For Expanding The Supreme Court

Why more Supreme Justices are needed to align the Court with 21st Century America.

In recent years, the integrity and impartiality of the United States Supreme Court have come under intense scrutiny. Amidst allegations of corruption and accusations that some justices perjured themselves during confirmation hearings—particularly concerning their stances on Roe v. Wade—the Court’s’ composition has ignited debate.

The confirmation processes have been tarnished by political maneuvering, casting long shadows over the justices’’ legitimacy and the Court’s’ role as a neutral arbiter of justice. This controversy is further compounded by several contentious decisions that have emerged from the Court, impacting voting rights, environmental regulations, and workers’ rights, among others. These rulings have not only reshaped the legal landscape of America but also raised questions about the extent to which the Court is influenced by partisan considerations rather than the impartial application of the law.

The call to expand the Supreme Court is gaining momentum to restore balance and faith in an institution at the heart of American democracy. It’s time for America to explore the necessity of reform to ensure that the Court upholds its duty to the American people fairly and without political bias.

Historical precedent.

The number of Supreme Court Justices in the US has changed six times since its establishment in 1789, ranging from as few as five justices to as many as ten. The Judiciary Act of 1789 initially set the number of Justices at six.

The size of the Court was first altered by the Midnight Judges Act of 1801, which was signed into law by President John Adams and would have reduced the size to five members upon its following vacancy. However, the act was repealed and then replaced by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 with the Judiciary Act of 1802, which reinstated the Court’s size to six members before any such vacancy occurred.

The Seventh Circuit Act of 1807 was a federal law that increased the number of Supreme Court justices from six to seven. The act also established the Seventh Circuit, which included Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The act was intended to reflect the country’s westward expansion.

The Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837 was a federal law that reorganized the federal judiciary’s circuit courts and increased the Supreme Court’s’ size from seven to nine justices. This act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson.

The Tenth Circuit Act of 1863 was a federal law that increased the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to ten to represent California and Oregon. This act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln.

In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act. It was Congress’s first significant judicial legislation after the Civil War. The act reorganized the Circuit Court and reduced the number of circuits from ten to nine. It also redrew circuit boundaries and authorized the gradual reduction of Supreme Court seats from ten to seven. The act was intended to prevent President Johnson from appointing any justices and to reduce Southern influence after the Civil War.

Soon after Johnson left office, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Judiciary Act of 1869 into law. This returned the number of justices to nine (where it has remained) and allowed Grant to appoint two more judges immediately.

Balancing ideological representation.

Expanding the Supreme Court by four justices would make the institution more representative of the American people.

In a poll conducted after the Supreme Court’s controversial decision on the Texas abortion law, more than half (56%) of registered voters—including 61% of Independents and 90% of Democrats—expressed support for Court expansion, saying the Supreme Court “has become too conservative, and that it is time to add seats to the Supreme Court to provide more balance that better represents America.”

The current Court has been captured by a radical conservative majority that has already shown its willingness to subvert democratic processes to roll back fundamental rights and protections, especially those of people of color, LGBTQ people, workers, and other marginalized communities, and to write into law protections for corporate interests and the wealthy.

We know from the last Presidential election that at least 51.3% of Americans identify as Democrats, while only 46.8% identify as Republicans. Yet, the current composition of the Supreme Court breaks down to approximately 67% Republican and 33% Democrat. Showing an extreme disconnect between SCOTUS and the American people. Expanding the Supreme Court would also give it an ideological balance.

Reducing partisan polarization.

The political climate surrounding Supreme Court nominations has become a bitter partisan battle that exacerbates the nation’s deep political divides. The confirmation process, once a procedural step, has transformed into a high-stakes political showdown, with each nomination viewed as a pivotal shift in the Court’s’ ideological balance.

This hyper-polarized environment strains the legislative process and diminishes the Supreme Court’s’ perceived impartiality. In an era where Supreme Court nominations are seen through ideological warfare, the process has become a zero-sum game, potentially swinging the Court’s ideological balance with each new justice.

Expanding the Supreme Court could serve as a corrective measure to this trend. This could shift how nominations are perceived, from monumental shifts in judicial philosophy to more incremental changes in the Court’s’ composition. Such a shift could help lower the temperature of confirmation battles as the potential impact of any one justice becomes less definitive of the Court’s’ overall direction.

Ultimately, expanding the Supreme Court offers a pathway to reducing the partisan polarization that has come to define its nomination and confirmation process. By making each appointment less pivotal to the Court’s’ ideological balance, we can move towards a judiciary that is more stable, balanced, and insulated from political change.

Reflecting a larger federal judiciary and population.

Since establishing the Supreme Court’s’ current size in 1869, the federal judiciary and the United States population have dramatically expanded. The number of federal courts has multiplied, encompassing a vast array of district and circuit courts to manage the increasing complexity and volume of federal litigation.

Simultaneously, the US population has surged from approximately 38 million in 1870 to over 330 million today, reflecting a diverse and multifaceted society with various legal needs and perspectives. This exponential growth underscores the necessity of reevaluating the Supreme Court’s capacity to reflect and adjudicate the nation’s evolving legal landscape effectively.

A larger Supreme Court is a natural evolution in response to these changes. Just as the federal judiciary has expanded to accommodate the growing demand for legal adjudication, so could the Supreme Court benefit from increased justices. This expansion would enhance the Court’s’ ability to manage its caseload more efficiently and provide an opportunity for a broader representation of legal philosophies and societal perspectives.

Expanding the Supreme Court is a necessary response to the significant growth in the federal judiciary system and the US population. It is a step towards ensuring that the Court can continue to fulfill its role as the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes in a manner that is efficient, representative, and reflective of the nation’s diverse and dynamic character.

13 Court Justices would align with the Circuit Courts.

The proposal to expand the Supreme Court to thirteen justices is not arbitrary; it reflects a deliberate effort to align the Court’s’ composition with the structure of the United States federal judiciary system, specifically its thirteen circuit courts.

Each circuit court oversees federal appeals from their respective states, ensuring that regional legal issues and interpretations of federal law are adjudicated. Expanding the Supreme Court to thirteen justices establishes a direct correspondence between the highest Court in the land and the circuit courts, enhancing the Supreme Court’s’ capacity to reflect diverse judicial philosophies and regional perspectives.

It allows for a more direct relationship between the Supreme Court and each circuit court, enabling justices to have a more specialized understanding of the legal issues and precedents that emerge from specific regions. This could lead to more informed and nuanced Supreme Court decisions that consider the varied legal landscapes across the country. Symbolically, matching the number of Supreme Court justices with the number of circuit courts underscores the unity and cohesiveness of the federal judiciary system, reinforcing that the Supreme Court reflects the broader judicial framework it oversees.

In essence, choosing thirteen as the new number of Supreme Court justices is a thoughtful response to the current structure of the federal judiciary and the need for the Supreme Court to adequately represent and address the legal diversity of the United States. This expansion enhances the Court’s functional capacity and symbolizes its commitment to being a genuinely national court.

How does the Supreme Court get expanded?

It has to be done through the legislative process. That means we have to control both the House and the Senate. But also, we have to have a Speaker of the House and a leader in the Senate willing to advance the legislation.

We should expect Republicans in the Senate to filibuster. So, unless we can get a 60-plus majority in the Senate, we would need 51 senators willing to kill the filibuster or make a carveout for this particular bill.

Then, the president would have to sign it.

It’s a tall order, but it starts with gaining the majority and recognizing that it may take a few election cycles. In the meantime, NOW is the time to start talking to your Congresspeople and Congressional candidates about getting behind this type of legislation.

The journey towards expanding the Supreme Court is undoubtedly challenging, but history has shown that significant changes in our democracy are possible when driven by collective action and persistent advocacy. Public opinion can shape policy, and widespread support for court expansion can drive political will.

Support candidates who are committed to judicial reform. Elections have consequences, and achieving a majority in Congress that favors expanding the Supreme Court requires electing representatives willing to take bold steps. Your vote, your voice, and your activism can make a difference.

LoneStarLeft’s newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Follow me on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram.