Stone Washington
The Keep Nine Amendment: A permanent solution to threats of court-packing
FacebookTwitter
By Stone Washington
December 30, 2024

“I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court.

If anything would make the court appear more partisan, it would be that. So, I am not at all in favor of that solution. Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time.”

~ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Today’s Supreme Court is in grave threat of court-packing. President Biden recently proposed a set of radical judicial reform measures. Additionally, Kamala Harris was receptive to a court-packing scenario had Democrats secured control of Congress and the presidency following the November 2024 election.

Court-packing would destroy the U.S. Supreme Court as we know it and destabilize our appellate system of review. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the first brazen attempt to pack the court with six additional Justices in 1937 to cement his New Deal legacy.

Although Roosevelt’s legislative proposal ultimately failed in Congress, his ominous threat likely pressured several Justices to turncoat and vote with the liberal bloc of the Court. Many subsequent judicial opinions upheld Roosevelt’s New Deal programs and similar state legislative derivatives. This infamous betrayal is often called the “switch in time that saved nine.”

The ongoing threat of court-packing continues to haunt America today.

The Biden-Harris efforts mark the first serious consideration of court-packing since FDR’s infamous attempt in 1937. In order to preserve America’s judiciary from this overreach once and for all, Congress should adopt the Keep Nine Amendment.

Keep Nine” is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would explicitly set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. It offers the only permanent solution to the looming threat of court expansion.

The Keep Nine Amendment consists of only 13 words: “the Supreme Court of the United States Shall be composed of nine Justices.” This piece discusses the history of Supreme Court sizing, why politicized court-packing is ahistorical, and why the Keep Nine Amendment comports with existing constitutional limitations to the other branches of government.

Keep Nine reflects constitutional safeguards on Congress and the President

The Keep Nine amendment not only safeguards against court-packing, but it also aligns with similar constitutional limitations on the other branches. In the executive branch, the Twenty Second Amendment was adopted to prevent any one President from serving more than two terms in office. This amendment was adopted to prevent a repeat of FDR’s perpetual presidency that saw him serve nearly four full terms in office.

The Twenty Second Amendment was intended for the presidency what the Keep Nine amendment is for the Supreme Court. Where presidents are prevented from serving in perpetuity under the Twenty Second Amendment, they should also be prevented from appointing new Justices ad infinitum.

Congress also possesses a constitutional safeguard akin to Keep Nine. According to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3—the Enumeration Clause—the House of Representatives is apportioned based on state population. This provision ensures that there be no more than one representative per 30,000 citizens in a legislative district. Redistricting must account for changes in population that align with the Enumeration Clause.

Similar to the Enumeration Clause’ population threshold, the Keep Nine Amendment provides a permanent constitutional threshold against “political overrepresentation” in the Court with a cap on nine-Justices. Proponents of court-packing believe that new Justices should be appointed for political expansionary purposes. In this way, FDR sought to judicially cement his New Deal legacy by appointing likeminded Justices.

Keep Nine offers to constitutional safeguard to preserve the Court’s size that aligns with pre-existing safeguards in the political branches. Just as the President is term-limited and House districts are population limited, so too should the number of Supreme Court Justices be personnel limited to nine.

Court expansion should follow territorial expansion

When looking back in time, we find the Supreme Court underwent seven periods of expansion and reduction. Each instance of court expansion corresponded with the inclusion of new states to the union or during a relative period of growth. This in-turn expanded the size of the American legal system by providing newly formed states access to the judicial circuit.

Such expansionism served a clear purpose as jurisdictional boundaries enlarged and new states were established in 1807, 1837, and 1863. The instance in 1863 saw a Republican Congress pass legislation granting President Lincoln the ability to appoint a tenth justice, Steven Johnson Field.

The rationale was to have Lincoln balance out the Court’s pro-slavery bent after several Justices resigned (including one death) from the bench following the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision. Additionally, Nebraska was granted statehood just four years after Field’s appointment, somewhat justifying the territorial expansion component of court expansion.

This historical justification for expanding the Court is a far cry from the political notions of court-packing being floated today.

Today’s calls for packing the court ignore the parallel need for new states to the union. Congress cannot simply introduce new Justices that are untethered to the entry of new states. Proponents of court packing seek to enlarge the Supreme Court in absence of a reciprocal expansion in domestic landmass or state formation.

Expanding the size of the Court without any clear historical or legal justification is akin to political opportunism. Importantly, we’ve seen such opportunism play out in the four instances where the Court’s size was reduced for reasons not having to do with new judicial circuits or states.

In each instance, the party in power used court reduction as a cudgel to punish the other side as a form of partisan revenge. Such political aims for court reduction inversely reflect incentives for today’s court expansionists: using the Court as a weapon to cement their political power.

Keep Nine preserves the Framer’s intent by safeguarding judicial independence

Judicial independence represents one of the great hallmarks of Western civilization. America’s judiciary is exceptional for providing a constitutionally protected and politically independent forum of judges, unbeholden to any party or faction. However, such independence has its limits, which largely hinges on the current size of the Court.

Keeping the size of the Court to nine Justices preserves judicial independence by denying any political faction in Congress or the president from tipping the Court perpetually in their favor. This accords with one of the three forms of judicial independence, namely, "political insularity."

Political insularity requires Justices to “be independent from popularly controlled government institutions” and is “essential for the pursuit of justice”, since courts are expected to render the decision that best upholds the law, not out of partisanship. Such insularity is essential for upholding the constitutional balance of powers doctrine.

The Framers intended for the Supreme Court to operate as the constitutional equalizer, checking abuses to the law by Congress and the President. The Court will lose this independent neutrality if court-packing becomes a reality.

Depending on the number of new Justices added, court-packing may permanently shift the Court’s decisions in one ideological direction. This would impose a point of no return for judicial independence, forever upending balanced decision-making as we know it.

The current nine-Justice framework ensures a healthy balance of new judicial appointments and retirements. Statistics show that on average, a new Supreme Court Justice is appointed roughly every two years. This naturally aligns with America’s political cycles that see congressional representative elections every two-years and presidential terms every four years.

Conclusion

The size of the Supreme Court has experienced its ebbs and flows in history. Yet, each increase served a specific legal purpose that corresponded with the formation of a new American state and circuit. The Court has remained at nine Justices for 225 years to reflect the final era of growth in America’s legal system.

The Keep Nine amendment offers to safeguard the Court from political coercion, construing with similar safeguards on the presidency and Congress. Additionally, the nine-Justice framework that we have ensures judicial independence and balanced oversight of the 13 judicial circuits. There simply isn’t a better number of Justices to serve on the bench at any one given time, as we enjoy a healthy transition of one new Justice for every two years.

This ensures that no one political power exerts too much influence over the high court. The Keep Nine Amendment provides the only viable safeguard to Supreme Court from politicized reforms like court-packing.

As Founding Father Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist #78 – “Complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.”

© Stone Washington

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Stone Washington

Stone Washington is a PhD student in the Trachtenberg School at George Washington University. Stone is employed as a Research Fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, focusing on economic policy as part of the Center for Advancing Capitalism. Previously, he completed a traineeship with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He was also a Research Assistant at the Manhattan Institute, serving as an extension from his time in the Collegiate Associate Program. During this time, he worked as a Graduate Teaching Assistant in Clemson's Department of Political Science and served as a WAC Practicum Fellow for the Pearce Center for Professional Communication. Stone is also a member of the Steamboat Institute's Emerging Leaders Council.

Stone possesses a Graduate Certificate in Public Administration from Clemson University, a Juris Master from Emory University School of Law, and a Bachelor of Arts in History from Clemson University. While studying at Emory Law, Stone was featured in an exclusive JM Student Spotlight, highlighting his most memorable law school experience. He has completed a journalism fellowship at The Daily Caller, is an alumnus of the Young Leader's Program at The Heritage Foundation, and served as a former student intern/Editor for Decipher Magazine. Some of Stone's articles can be found at EllisWashingtonReport.com, which often provide a critical analysis of prominent works of classical literature and its correlations to American history and politics. Stone is a member of the Project 21 Black Leadership Network, and has written a number of policy-related op-eds for the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The College Fix, Real Clear Policy, and City Journal. In addition, Stone is listed in the Marquis Who's Who in America and is a member of the Golden Key International Honour Society. Friend him on his Facebook page, also his Twitter handle: @StoneZone47 and Instagram. Email him at stonebone20@att.net.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Stone Washington: Click here

More by this author

December 30, 2024
The Keep Nine Amendment: A permanent solution to threats of court-packing


October 11, 2024
Book review: The innovative efficiency and competitive dynamism of biotechnology


June 6, 2024
The marvels of modern watchmaking: How three brands preserved quality timekeeping


March 30, 2024
Judge, jury, and regulator: Are SRO courts more of a threat than a benefit?


February 29, 2024
The political failings of ESG: Why 2024 is the year for policy reform


October 31, 2023
The SEC’s ethical breach as an 'amicus' against We the People before the Supreme Court


July 13, 2023
Special Counsel Durham delivers a special dose of reality on FBI corruption and weaponization


May 5, 2023
All “Bragg” and no bite: Why the New York DA’s case against Trump is 100% a political witch hunt


April 1, 2023
Congress cracks down on the weaponization of government


February 2, 2023
The Twitter files – Elon Musk’s takeover, and the exposé of big tech censorship


More articles

 

Stephen Stone
HAPPY EASTER: A message to all who love our country and want to help save it

Stephen Stone
The most egregious lies Evan McMullin and the media have told about Sen. Mike Lee

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
FLASHBACK to 2020: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Joan Swirsky
Once again, having no faith in the smartest guy in the room

Cliff Kincaid
The financial rise and moral decline of Fox News

Tom DeWeese
President Trump must keep a clear vision as the global left uses tactics to subvert him

Cliff Kincaid
A wolf in Soros clothing in Trump’s cabinet

Pete Riehm
Politics may evade reality but governing cannot escape adversity

Jerry Newcombe
'Above us only sky'

Cliff Kincaid
The death of communism in California

Stanley Zir
Hanukkah

Curtis Dahlgren
'Why does God allow such things to happen?'

Michael Bresciani
Governor Newsom sends wisdom to the wind, but the wind returned with a mean friend

Linda Goudsmit
Linda Goudsmit responds to Ian Andrew-Patrick's extraordinary January 10, 2025 article:

Jerry Newcombe
The Bible and the schools
  More columns

Cartoons


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites