Supreme Court Term Limits Would Require Constitutional Amendment

U.S. Supreme Court justices have drawn bipartisan interest over the years. Any such change would require a constitutional amendment under current interpretations of Article III. According to Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution, federal judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour.

That language has long been understood to mean a lifetime appointment from which a federal judge may only be removed via the formal impeachment and removal process.

Historical Interpretation Federalist No.

78, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788, supported permanent tenure for federal judges. Hamilton argued that lifetime appointments would insulate judges from political pressure and help ensure faithful performance of their duties. A constitutional amendment requiring term limits for federal judges was introduced in Congress in 1807.

Lawmakers at that time believed an amendment was necessary to limit a federal judge's time in office. A recent New York Times op-ed asserted that term limits could be imposed through federal law without a constitutional amendment. The article in Reason states that such a transformation of Article III would not pass constitutional review.

Judicial term limits may be a good idea. The notion that such a change may be accomplished without the passage and ratification of a new amendment does not pass the constitutional smell test.