Johnny Olszewski

The debate over Supreme Court reform is back in the spotlight as Rep. Johnny Olszewski, D-Md., introduced a constitutional amendment that would impose 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices.

Olszewski’s proposal, called the Reform of Bench Eligibility Act, or ROBE Act, would replace the current system of lifetime appointments with regular, predictable turnover on the nation’s highest court. According to Olszewski’s office, the amendment would apply to current justices and include a transition process to move the Court into the new system.

The proposal comes after the Supreme Court's voting-rights ruling that Olszewski’s office described as effectively gutting the Voting Rights Act. In a statement, Olszewski said public faith in the court depends on its legitimacy as a fair and independent institution, arguing that recent rulings, ethics controversies, and increasingly political behavior by some justices have tested that trust.

The push for term limits is also backed by the Brennan Center for Justice, which argues in a new analysis that the Supreme Court is facing a crisis of public confidence and has become too powerful with too little accountability. The group says the Court’s authority depends heavily on public trust because it does not have its own direct enforcement power.

At the center of the Brennan Center’s proposal is an 18-year active service term for Supreme Court justices. After that period, justices would move into senior status, meaning they would remain federal judges but take on a more limited role, such as hearing cases in lower courts or stepping in during recusals or unexpected vacancies.

The Brennan Center argues this reform is needed because justices are serving much longer than they historically did. According to the group, Supreme Court justices served an average of about 15 years for nearly two centuries. But since 1993, the average term has grown to about 28 years.

Supporters say those longer tenures allow individual justices to shape American law for generations on issues including voting rights, abortion, gun laws, campaign finance and presidential power. The Brennan Center also argues that regular appointments, one every two years, could lower the stakes of confirmation fights and make the process more predictable.

Public polling suggests the idea has broad support. The Brennan Center cites a 2024 Fox News poll finding that 78% of Americans support limiting Supreme Court justices to 18-year terms. The Fox News poll also found the Court’s approval rating had dropped to a record low at the time.

Still, the proposal faces major legal and political hurdles. Under the current system, Supreme Court justices hold lifetime appointments under Article III of the Constitution. The Brennan Center argues Congress could enact 18-year active-service terms by statute if justices remain in senior status. Olszewski’s ROBE Act, however, is framed as a constitutional amendment, which would require approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Critics of term limits argue that lifetime tenure is designed to protect judicial independence, insulating justices from political pressure, public opinion and retaliation from Congress or the White House. They also warn that reform efforts often gain momentum when one party is unhappy with the Court’s current ideological balance.

Beyond term limits, the Brennan Center is calling for five other reforms: a binding ethics code, limits on the Court’s emergency or “shadow docket,” a faster process for Congress to respond to major Supreme Court rulings, changes to the confirmation process and cameras in the courtroom.

The group says those changes are needed to rebuild public trust after polarizing rulings, ethics controversies and increasingly partisan confirmation battles. But the broader debate comes down to a balance: whether Congress can make the Supreme Court more accountable and transparent without undermining the independence the judiciary was designed to protect.