House Democrats Deliver Blow to GOP Push to Permanently Lock Supreme Court at 9 Justices

A Republican effort to permanently block any future expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court has crashed in the House, exposing an increasingly bitter fight over who gets to shape America’s highest court.

The House voted 212-206 on Wednesday, September 2, rejecting a proposed constitutional amendment that would not have allowed expansion and would have permanently fixed the Supreme Court at nine justices.

The measure, introduced by Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, needed a two-thirds majority to clear the House. It fell dramatically short, with all but one Democrat voting against it. Republican lawmakers backed the proposal, while Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina was the lone Democrat to support it. Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, who caucuses with Republicans, voted against the measure.

The defeat immediately reignited the debate over Supreme Court expansion, an idea once considered politically fringe but now gaining traction among some Democrats.

GOP Wanted to Make Nine Justices Permanent

Andy Biggs’ proposed constitutional amendment was blunt: the Supreme Court would consist of one chief justice and eight associate justices.

He argued that permanently fixing the number would prevent whichever political party controls Washington from changing the court whenever it wins power.

“Not because nine is a magic number,” Biggs argued, but because a fixed court would prevent future administrations and Congresses from expanding it for political advantage.

But Democrats rejected that argument, saying the amendment would surrender a power that the Constitution deliberately leaves with Congress.

House Democratic leadership urged members to vote against the resolution, arguing that lawmakers should retain the authority to determine the size of the judiciary.

Supreme Court Expansion Is Becoming a Democratic Flashpoint

The Constitution itself does not establish the number of Supreme Court justices. Congress has historically set the court’s size through legislation.

The first Congress established a six-member Supreme Court in 1789. Congress subsequently changed the number several times, including periods when the court had as many as 10 justices.

The nine-member court Americans know today was established in 1869.

That history is now at the center of an increasingly fierce political argument.

Some Democrats contend that the current conservative majority has made court reform unavoidable, particularly after major rulings on abortion, voting rights and presidential immunity.

Progressive judicial advocacy groups have increasingly pushed to add seats.

Jim Clyburn Wants a 13-Member Supreme Court

The push is no longer confined to the progressive fringe.

Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, one of the most influential figures in his party, recently endorsed expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions,” Clyburn said, arguing that Congress should expand the court.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also said Democrats should revisit expanding the Supreme Court.

That makes Wednesday’s vote far more significant than a routine constitutional amendment defeat.

Republicans Warn of ‘Court Packing’

Republicans argue that expanding the Supreme Court would turn the judiciary into another partisan battlefield.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has strongly opposed expansion, warning that “court packing” would politicize an institution that should operate independently of election cycles.

Republicans have also used the vote as part of a broader campaign to portray Democrats as increasingly aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America.

The political messaging is unmistakable: Republicans want voters to see the fight over the Supreme Court as a battle against what they describe as an attempt to radically transform the judiciary.

Democrats Fire Back at Trump-Era Supreme Court

Democrats, meanwhile, say the Republican amendment aims to permanently preserve a conservative court majority.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, argued that Republicans were seeking to lock the current political balance into place for decades.

The underlying battle could become even bigger before the 2028 presidential election.

If Democrats eventually win control of the White House and Congress, Supreme Court expansion could shift from a political talking point to a legislative priority.

For now, however, Republicans have failed to constitutionally freeze the court at nine seats.

And with the House divided 212-206 on the issue, the fight over the Supreme Court’s future size and ideological balance is anything but over.