A bill proposing term limits for Supreme Court justices has received a new voice of support after Representative Mike Levin, a California Democrat, announced he will co-sponsor a bill calling for the measure.

However, the proposal faces an enormous constitutional barrier: Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior,” a clause widely understood to prohibit term limits without a constitutional amendment. Most legal scholars believe Congress cannot impose term limits by statute alone.

The legislation, titled the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025, was introduced in the House on February 6 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The measure has virtually no chance of passage in the current Congress. Republicans, who currently benefit from a durable 6–3 conservative majority on the Court, have shown no interest in term limits or any structural reforms. Without bipartisan support, the bill functions largely as a marker of Democratic frustration with the Court rather than a viable legislative path.

Newsweek contacted Levin’s office for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.

...

Why It Matters

Democratic calls for Supreme Court reform intensified after a decade of contentious confirmation politics. Senate Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s 2016 nominee Merrick Garland, then confirmed Neil Gorsuch in 2017. They later confirmed Amy Coney Barrett just days before the 2020 election.

These events, combined with a string of conservative decisions on abortion, guns, and regulatory authority, have left progressives convinced the Court is ideologically imbalanced for a generation. Term limits have therefore emerged as one of the few reform ideas with any bipartisan public support, even though elected Republicans remain firmly opposed.

With the bill unlikely to advance past committee, the proposal serves more as a political statement about dissatisfaction with the Court — and as a sign that Democrats are searching for structural remedies after a decade of losing the judicial appointments battle.

What To Know

The bill, H.R. 1074, would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices and create a regular appointment schedule.

Under its provisions, the president would nominate one justice during the first and third years following a presidential election, resulting in a new appointment every two years.

The proposal is sponsored by Representative Ro Khanna of California and has multiple Democratic co-sponsors.

In a post published December 11 on X, Levin said he was “proud to cosponsor a bill to set 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.” He wrote that “an 18-year term, with one new Justice appointed every two years, will bring balance and predictability,” adding, “No more strategic retirements. Just a steady, fair process that restores trust.”

How It Would Change The Supreme Court

The legislation would not require current justices to leave the Court.

Justices appointed before the bill’s enactment would be exempt from the new term limits and would not be counted toward the nine-justice panel exercising judicial power, according to the text.

After completing an 18-year term, newly appointed justices would be deemed retired from regular active service and designated as senior justices.

As senior justices, former members of the Court could continue to perform judicial duties when designated and assigned by the chief justice, a system the bill models on existing practices in other parts of the federal judiciary.

Levin highlighted this feature in his post, writing that justices would “continue contributing as senior judges, the same way it already works across much of the federal judiciary.”

The bill also includes a provision addressing Senate confirmation delays.

If the Senate does not act on a Supreme Court nominee within 120 days, it would be deemed to have waived its advice and consent authority, and the nominee would be seated automatically.

Political And Legal Outlook

Supporters argue that the measure would align the Supreme Court more closely with practices used by state courts.

Levin wrote that “nearly every state uses some form of term limits or reappointment for their highest courts,” and said the proposal would “strengthen the system without politicizing it”.

He also argued that lifetime appointments give individual justices “extraordinary power for far too long,” while term limits would “modernize” the Court and make it more accountable.

The idea of Supreme Court term limits has circulated in Congress for years.

A similar bill was introduced during the 117th Congress but did not advance.

As with previous efforts, the current proposal faces legal and political questions, including whether such changes could be enacted by statute alone or would require a constitutional amendment.

At this stage, H.R. 1074 has not received a hearing or a committee vote.

Its prospects remain uncertain in a divided Congress, where changes to the Supreme Court have historically drawn intense scrutiny.

What People Are Saying

California Democrat Mike Levin on X wrote: “I’m proud to cosponsor a bill to set 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.”

When asked about proposals to change how the Supreme Court is structured last year, a Trump campaign adviser said the then-GOP presidential nominee believes “the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make” and that he would continue appointing judges who “interpret the law as written.”

What Happens Next

The bill now sits with the House Judiciary Committee, which would need to hold hearings and advance it before any full House vote.

If it were to pass the House, it would still need Senate approval and the president’s signature.

Even then, the proposal could face court challenges over whether Supreme Court term limits can be imposed by statute rather than by constitutional amendment, leaving its ultimate future uncertain.

Whether or not term limits gain traction, the bill underscores a deepening divide over the future of the Supreme Court. With a conservative majority likely to remain intact for years, Democrats are increasingly turning to reforms that face long odds in Congress but reflect growing discontent with the Court’s direction and legitimacy.

Update, 12/12/2025, 11:08 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.

Correction, 12/12/2025, 11:08 a.m. ET: An earlier version of this article mistakenly identified Representative Mike Levin as a Republican.