Feature
Scholars conclude terms limits would help restore ideological balance to the nation’s highest court
Writing in the Southern California Law Review, HKS Professor of Public Policy Maya Sen, along with University of Chicago’s Adam Chilton, and Daniel Epps and Kyle Rozema of Washington University in St. Louis, provide an assessment of the impact that various term limit proposals would have on the composition of the Supreme Court.
As public dissatisfaction with the Court has grown, so too has the chorus of reform proposals that would fundamentally reshape how justices are appointed. “Many have found the case for term limits persuasive: commentators, politicians across the political spectrum, and even the American public have all expressed support for term limits,” write Sen and her co-authors in Designing Supreme Court Term Limits. Term limits, proponents argue, would prevent Justices from retiring strategically in order to try to maintain their party’s ideological advantages on the Court.
While term limit proposals differ in important ways, such as how the transition to the new system would work, most would have Justices serve for eighteen years with their tenures staggered so that two appointments would be made each presidential term. Although term limits appear to enjoy broad bipartisan support and also to be gaining traction among some on Capitol Hill, many discussions have been silent on many key design decisions, such as what would happen should the Senate refuse to consider a president’s nomination. Further, few have studied how this proposal would affect the actual composition of the Supreme Court.
The authors believe there are four design choices for term limit proposals that policymakers should consider when drawing up eighteen-year term-limit plans:
Sen, Chilton, Epps, and Rozema find that term limits are likely to produce dramatic changes in the ideological composition of the Court. While life tenure ostensibly insulates justices from political pressure, the authors argue that “it also results in unpredictable deaths and strategic retirements determining the timing of Court vacancies.” The Supreme Court, for example, has had extreme ideological imbalance for sixty percent of the time since President Franklin Roosevelt’s effort to pack the Court. Any of the major term-limits proposals floated in recent years would have reduced the amount of time with extreme imbalance by almost half. “If the goal is to prevent the Supreme Court from becoming ideologically extreme, then term limits would probably do a very good job with that,” added Sen.
Written by Daniel Harsha, Associate Director of Communications and Strategic Initiatives
Podcast
The relationship between Silicon Valley and the Democratic Party has undergone a dramatic shift over the past decade, with many tech leaders moving away from their once-strong political alignment. This special episode of Terms of Engagement explores what drove that change and what it means for the future of democracy, political power, and the influence of technology elites.
Podcast
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Troy Edwards, who was a leading prosecutor in the case of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, joins Terms of Engagement to discuss the Trump Administration’s move to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and what it means for the future of the Department of Justice and the rule of law.
Podcast
Penn University Professor Emeritus Rogers Smith joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discusses birthright citizenship, an American institution enshrined in the Constitution but increasingly under scrutiny from President Trump and his allies.
Additional Resource
After Neoliberalism: From Left to Right brought together hundreds of leading economists, political scientists, journalists, writers and thinkers from across the political spectrum to explore and debate emerging visions for the future of the political economy.
Panel videos below.
Commentary
Allen Lab Affiliate Benjamin A. Barsky examines alternative emergency response programs — arguing for a democratic model of public safety governance in which responses to nonviolent incidents are shared across government and civil society rather than dominated by police.
Commentary
Allen Lab Policy Fellow Christine Slaughter makes the case that democracy must be understood through people’s lived experiences and agency, not just institutions.
