Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) has introduced a sweeping bill aimed at drastically reforming the U.S. Supreme Court. His proposal seeks to expand the number of justices, increase transparency, and limit the influence of politics on the nation’s highest court. While the bill faces a difficult path forward, especially in a narrowly divided Congress, it signals a bold effort to address what many see as a growing crisis in the judiciary.
Public confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily eroded in recent years, with a series of high-profile ethics scandals and decisions that have inflamed the nation’s political divisions. Wyden’s bill, introduced Wednesday, represents a comprehensive attempt to address these issues and reshape the Court to better serve the American people.
At the heart of Wyden’s proposal is a plan to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 15 over the next 12 years. Presidents would nominate justices every first and third year of their term, providing a steady flow of appointments rather than the sporadic, politically charged battles that currently occur when a vacancy opens.
This expansion, according to Wyden, would reduce the politicization of the Court by diluting the power of individual appointments. On a 15-member court, the influence of a single justice would be significantly diminished, making it harder for any one nomination to swing the ideological balance dramatically. This, in turn, could reduce the intensity of nomination battles in the Senate, which have become increasingly partisan.
To further limit political obstruction, the bill includes a provision requiring the Senate to hold a vote on any Supreme Court nominee within 180 days of their selection by the Judiciary Committee. This would prevent the kind of stalling tactics seen in the past, such as the refusal to hold a vote on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016.
Wyden’s bill also proposes expanding the number of federal judicial circuits from 13 to 15, adding 60 appellate court judges and 100 district court judges. This would relieve the growing backlog of cases in the federal judiciary and ensure that the courts can function more efficiently.
One of the most significant aspects of Wyden’s bill is its focus on transparency and ethics reform. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been plagued by a series of ethics scandals, most notably involving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. ProPublica investigations revealed that Justice Thomas accepted lavish vacations and gifts from billionaire donors without disclosing them, while Alito was found to have flown on private jets provided by politically connected individuals. These revelations have fueled calls for stronger ethical oversight of the judiciary.
Wyden’s proposal would require justices to release three years of their tax returns before being confirmed to the Court. Additionally, justices would be subjected to annual audits by the IRS, with the results made public. These transparency measures aim to restore public trust in the integrity of the justices and ensure that they are not unduly influenced by outside financial interests.
The bill also seeks to reform the Court’s recusal process. Currently, justices decide for themselves whether they should recuse from a case. Wyden’s proposal would change this, allowing a two-thirds majority of the Court to decide if a justice should step aside. This would prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that justices are held accountable by their peers.
Another key feature of Wyden’s bill is a new requirement for the Court when ruling on laws passed by Congress. The proposal would mandate that two-thirds of the justices must agree to declare a law unconstitutional, rather than the current simple majority. This would make it more difficult for the Court to overturn legislation and could help preserve important legal precedents that have been challenged in recent years.
The proposal is designed to address concerns that the Supreme Court has become overly activist, issuing sweeping rulings that override the will of Congress and upend long-standing legal precedents. Wyden argued that this measure would restore balance between the three branches of government, ensuring that the judiciary does not have unchecked power to overturn laws passed by elected representatives.
Wyden’s bill comes at a time when public approval of the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. A Marquette University Law School poll published last month found that only 43 percent of respondents approved of the Court’s actions, while 57 percent disapproved. Much of this discontent stems from the Court’s rulings on reproductive rights, voting rights, and environmental protections, as well as concerns over the justices’ ethical conduct.
In the same poll, a significant portion of respondents gave the justices a “low” or “very low” rating on ethical standards. These findings highlight the urgency of Wyden’s proposed reforms, which seek to address both the perceived politicization of the Court and the ethical lapses that have shaken public confidence.
However, the political reality in Congress poses a significant obstacle to Wyden’s bill. With Republicans controlling the House and Democrats holding only a narrow majority in the Senate, it is unlikely that the legislation will advance during this session. Nevertheless, Wyden remains hopeful that elements of the bill could gain traction in the future.
“We are proposing a way to restore some balance between the three branches of government,” Wyden said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. “This is about ensuring that the Supreme Court works for the people, not just a narrow political elite.”
COMMENTS