House Democrats have made affordability a central theme of their 2026 message, and now say Supreme Court reform belongs in the pitch, too.
Democrats have increasingly criticized the Supreme Court and its rulings in the second Trump administration, particularly after the high court weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allowed several GOP-led states to redistrict in favor of their party.
Now, with just 63 days till the November elections, Democrats are drawing a line connecting Supreme Court reforms to their affordability pitch, with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) telling the Washington Examiner that the high court is “functioning, in many instances, like a wholly owned subsidiary of MAGA extremists.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) similarly argued that the Supreme Court is “bought and sold by, unfortunately, people who are giant corporations and big corporate interests who buy luxury RVs and pay for golf vacations.”
The Washington Democrat said that tackling Supreme Court reforms is how Democrats “ensure that we have a justice system that fights for working people.”
Jeffries, who has previously said he is for Supreme Court reforms, told the Washington Examiner that Democrats have “made clear that we are going to hold everyone accountable who’s been conducting themselves in ways that don’t serve the best interests of the American people” when asked whether reforming the high court aligns with Democratic messaging around affordability.
It’s unclear what reforms Democrats would pursue if they win the House majority in November or how those reforms would bring down the cost of living, but Democrats appear to be in favor of expanding the court.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), who has legislation to expand the Supreme Court, accused the justices of having “aided and abetted the donor class, who are the billionaires and multi-billionaires and a trillionaire who have profited massively and continue to accumulate wealth at the expense of the bottom 99.9 percent of the American people.”
“They are the ones responsible for the high prices, and they’re getting the profits from the high prices,” Johnson continued.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) told NBC over the weekend that he supported adding four seats to the court, saying that “13 is a pretty good number.”
“A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court,” the longtime House Democrat said.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told the Washington Examiner she similarly wanted to see the number of justices on the Supreme Court expanded to 13, and that advocating for doing so was “in line with our messaging around corruption, which is driving up people’s costs.”
Still, other Democrats are open to other avenues. Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO) said that “all options have to be on the table.”
“What we see from this administration and from the Supreme Court is literally the weaponization of our judiciary, and no longer is the rule of law and the Constitution held with the regard that it should be,” Bell said. “And so I think that whether it be looking at term limits, whether it be looking at expansion of the Supreme Court, I think serious conversations need to be had, and … I think all options should be on the table.”
As Democrats eye taking up Supreme Court reforms should they hold the majority next Congress, House GOP leadership is teeing up a vote on legislation this week to “require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.”
Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee Jaime Raskin (D-MD) said he was opposed to the resolution, and that it would strip Congress of a “power we’ve had since the founding of the Republic.”
DEMOCRATS FROM OPPOSITE SIDES OF PARTY ALL RALLY BEHIND ‘BIG TENT’
“Congress has altered the composition of the court seven or eight times in our history, depending on how you count it,” Raskin said. “It’s been 10, it’s been nine, it’s been six, it’s been eight. It’s up to Congress.”
He continued, “We know that the Republicans have given away our war powers, they’ve given away our taxing powers, they’ve given away our spending powers to the president. We don’t have a king here. We should not give away this historic and traditional power that Congress has.”