SCOTUS Term Limits May Be a Good Idea. But They Still Require a Constitutional Amendment.
The discussion around imposing term limits on U.S. Supreme Court justices has gained bipartisan support. However, implementing such changes would require a constitutional amendment, making it a challenging endeavor. A recent op-ed suggests that term limits could potentially be established through federal law, raising questions about the necessity of an amendment.
- ▪Term limits for Supreme Court justices have broad bipartisan support.
- ▪Any change to the federal judiciary, including term limits, would require a constitutional amendment.
- ▪A recent op-ed argues that term limits could be imposed through federal law without needing an amendment.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Supreme Court SCOTUS Term Limits May Be a Good Idea. But They Still Require a Constitutional Amendment. Lifetime tenure for federal judges has been the constitutional practice since ratification. Damon Root | 5.21.2026 7:00 AM Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google Media Contact & Reprint Requests <img src="https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/c800x450-w800-q80/uploads/2026/05/05.20.26-v1-3-800x450.jpg" style="max-width: 100%; height: auto" width="1200" height="675" title="A blue tinted paper with dates and the words "term limits" across the background with the U.S.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason.com.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason.com
