Oct. 23 marked the 35th anniversary of Clarence Thomas joining the Supreme Court. Throughout his tenure, he has been regarded by many as a voice of reason and sound judgment. It is precisely this strong, steady voice that some Democrats now seek to silence by expanding the court and diluting its originalist and textualist majority with progressive justices.
While the Democratic Socialists of America openly advocates abolishing the Supreme Court, a move that would require a constitutional amendment or a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, mainstream Democrats are pursuing a more attainable approach: court-packing. By adding at least four more justices, they aim to reshape the judiciary to suit political goals.
Hillary Clinton is the latest high-profile Democrat to endorse expanding the court. Last week, on her and Kara Swisher’s podcast, High Stakes, Clinton argued, “We should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power.” Clinton justified her position by citing the number of federal appeals circuits: “We now have 13 circuits; we should have 13 justices.” However, since Supreme Court justices no longer “ride circuit” to hear cases, this argument is outdated.
Expanding the court would only deepen its politicization. In a July letter to Congress, more than 50 organizations opposing court-packing warned: “For over 150 years, the Supreme Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Although a nine-justice court is not constitutionally required, adding justices now would serve no purpose but to politicize, and thus undermine the legitimacy of, the court and its rulings. Court-packing from either party would be devastating for the rule of law in our Nation.”
Law professor Jonathan Turley has also argued that expanding the court simply to create an ideological majority would do “considerable violence” to the judiciary and erode public trust in the court as a neutral arbiter. He noted that even former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed this idea. As Turley explained, adding five or six new members to secure an immediate majority “would destroy any semblance of credibility,” echoing Ginsburg’s own warning.
The idea of adding liberal justices to shift the court’s ideological balance has become increasingly mainstream among Democrats. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said on Meet the Press this summer that he supported expanding the court, declaring, “13 is a pretty good number.” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a podcast interview about a week ago, “I believe that we need to expand the Supreme Court.” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a potential 2028 presidential candidate, argued that only one Democrat voted for a constitutional amendment to set the number of justices at nine, which “shows the consensus now to expand the court” within his party.
Other prominent Democrats supporting this political move include Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Jamie Raskin (D-MD), as well as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL) has said court expansion “may be what we need,” while Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), another likely 2028 presidential candidate, has called for “radical reform” of the court, stating that “everything needs to be on the table.”
Attempting to change the makeup of the court simply because you disagree with its decisions breaks with the long-standing tradition of a nine-member court, which has been in place since 1869. More importantly, it threatens judicial independence by turning the judiciary into an extension of the executive and legislative branches, rather than preserving it as an independent check on their power. This is precisely the danger posed by court-packing efforts gaining traction among Democrats.
The intent is no longer hidden. Democratic political strategist James Carville recently said the quiet part out loud on a left-leaning podcast, suggesting that if Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, they should “on Day 1” make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., states and expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices. “Eat our dust,” Carville said.
He then urged Democrats to keep the plan under wraps during campaigns and simply implement it once back in power.
BEER IN MY GARAGE IS LEGAL. WHISKEY COULD COST ME FIVE YEARS
For a ruling party to pack a nation’s highest court would be a national embarrassment, even in less-developed countries. Should Democrats succeed, the United States would join the ranks of countries such as Venezuela in 2004 and Argentina in 1989, where governments manipulated their highest courts for political ends.
That Democrats are seriously considering such a plan is a troubling development for their party and a threat to the independence of the Supreme Court.
Kristen A. Ullman is the president of Eagle Forum.