Johnny Olszewski

A Maryland Democrat proposed a long-shot bill to impose term limits on Supreme Court judges in the latest reform effort to capitalize on the high court’s historic unpopularity across the political spectrum.

The proposal for 18-year term limits from Representative Johnny Ozlewski requires a constitutional amendment and has virtually no chance of becoming law and forcing Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts—all of whom have served more than two decades—into retirements.

But Ozlewski is doing more than political signaling. The Supreme Court is under attack from the president and Congress, from Republicans and Democrats. While there is no consensus on the path to reform, polling suggests a growing appetite for it.

The constitutional amendment called the Reform of Bench Eligibility (ROBE) Act would end Supreme Court lifetime appointments, apply to current justices and include provisions for a "fair and orderly transition" to the new system, according to a press release from Olszewski’s office.

As a proposed constitutional amendment, the ROBE Act would require approval by two‑thirds of both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three‑quarters of the states. For starters, the proposal is unlikely to move forward given the current political dynamics in Congress, as it will not be a priority for GOP lawmakers controlling both the House and the Senate.

Even if introduced this week, the legislation would first be sent to committee, and any ratification effort would likely take years, making near‑term changes to the Supreme Court improbable.

Why Is Supreme Court Trust at Historic Lows?

The long-shot proposal comes as trust in the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, remains at historic lows, according to polling. A survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) in 2025 showed that even two-thirds of Republicans (67 percent) supported the idea of term-limiting Supreme Court justices, along with 85 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.

A poll by NBC News released in March found that 22 percent of registered voters nationally said they have a "great deal" or "quite a bit" of confidence in the Supreme Court, 40 percent said they had "some" confidence and 38 percent said they had "very little" or "no" confidence. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from February 27 to March 3 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

A Gallup poll released in October of last year found that 49 percent of Americans say they trust the Supreme Court either "a great deal" (16 percent) or "a fair amount" (33 percent).

"That level of trust is among the lowest in Gallup’s trend, essentially matching the low point of 47 percent from 2022," Gallup said.

Analysts link the decline to a series of high‑profile rulings on abortion, voting rights, and presidential power, as well as ethics controversies involving justices’ finances and political ties—issues repeatedly cited by Olszewski in promoting the ROBE Act.

Meanwhile, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, found that Supreme Court tenure has expanded dramatically over the past century, with justices now serving far longer on average than at any previous point in U.S. history. The authors contend that what was once service measured in the teens has increasingly stretched into multiple decades, fundamentally changing the stakes of each appointment and magnifying the long‑term political impact of individual nominations.

President Donald Trump and lawmakers have also criticized the Supreme Court repeatedly, albeit for very different reasons. Democrats are concerned about the 6 to 3 conservative majority, saying that the court has become overly partisan and is using its power to push forward right-wing priorities—such as abortion restrictions.

The president and his GOP allies have slammed the court, including conservative justices appointed by Trump, for ruling against the administration in some recent high profile cases. In particular, the president has repeatedly attack the Supreme Court for its decision to overturn his controversial tariffs.

“No, certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for,” he said in an April post on Truth Social.

What is the ROBE Act?

Olszewski’s office said the ROBE Act would create lower stakes around Supreme Court nominations, promote a more consistent appointment process and rebuild trust in the court.

"Faith in the Court depends on its legitimacy as a fair and independent institution," Olszewski said. "Recent rulings that have thrown out decades of legal precedent, combined with ethically dubious behavior by sitting judges, are testing that faith. Justices should not be hobnobbing at White House dinners and flying on the private jets of friends who have business before the Court. By establishing term limits, we can reduce the political gamesmanship surrounding appointments, restore balance to the process, and strengthen the integrity of the Court."

Olszewski’s office said modern tenure lengths are the longest in U.S. history and decisions on retirement from the bench have become more strategic, "often aligned with the political preferences of the sitting president."

Which Justices Would be Affected by the ROBE Act?

Justice Thomas is the longest‑serving member of the current Supreme Court, having been appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and serving for more than 34 years. Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, both appointed by President George W. Bush, have each served for more than two decades. Together, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are the only justices on the current court who have served longer than 18 years.

Speculation has periodically emerged about potential retirements by Thomas and Alito, who at 77 and 76 are the court’s oldest members. However, neither justice plans to retire this year, CBS News reported, citing sources familiar with their thinking.

President Donald Trump said last month in an interview with Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo that he is “prepared” to nominate a new justice if one or more seats were to open.

“It could be two, could be three, could be one. I don’t know—I’m prepared to do it,” he said.

While there has been less sustained speculation surrounding Thomas’ departure, attention has recently focused on Alito. He briefly fell ill at a March event in Philadelphia and was treated for dehydration, returning to the court the following Monday. Some legal observers have also pointed to the October 6 release of Alito’s forthcoming book, So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country, which coincides with the opening week of the Supreme Court’s 2026–27 term.

Writing in The Nation, legal analyst Elie Mystal suggested the timing signaled a possible retirement, while Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck wrote in his One First newsletter that “one can’t exactly go on a book tour during the first argument session of the term.” Others disagreed. In a Bloomberg Law column, legal journalist David Lat said the publication date likely reflected a marketing decision tied to heightened attention on the court, rather than any imminent plans to leave the bench.

Khanna's Effort Contrasts With ROBE Act

A law proposing term limits for the Supreme Court introduced last year, titled the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025, was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, but it did not advance further.

Sponsored by Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California, the bill proposed staggered 18‑year terms for future Supreme Court justices and required presidents to nominate a new justice every two years, regardless of vacancies. Under the narrower plan, justices who reached the 18‑year mark would move into “senior” status, while the court’s active docket would be handled by the nine most junior justices. Crucially, the 2025 bill explicitly exempted sitting justices, allowing them to retain lifetime tenure.

That exemption marks a key difference from the newly proposed ROBE Act, which would apply term limits retroactively and force the immediate removal of several current justices.