--- title: Why SCOTUS Term Limits Will Lead to a Fairer Court description: Kermit Roosevelt III explains why SCOTUS term limits shouldn’t be a partisan issue. canonical: https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/ author: TIME article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2024-07-29T16:43:47.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-24T18:02:33.005Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Why SCOTUS Term Limits Will Lead to a Fairer Court og:description: Kermit Roosevelt III explains why SCOTUS term limits shouldn’t be a partisan issue. og:url: https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt91783b6f8c120854/698a5959929fad5a0dbfccde/Scotus-term-limits.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: Scotus-term-limits og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Why SCOTUS Term Limits Will Lead to a Fairer Court twitter:description: Kermit Roosevelt III explains why SCOTUS term limits shouldn’t be a partisan issue. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt91783b6f8c120854/698a5959929fad5a0dbfccde/Scotus-term-limits.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 --- # Why SCOTUS Term Limits Will Lead to a Fairer Court > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=0b532dd6-b32c-4cc5-94d6-54eccdf8bdc7&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=0b532dd6-b32c-4cc5-94d6-54eccdf8bdc7&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=0b532dd6-b32c-4cc5-94d6-54eccdf8bdc7&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=0b532dd6-b32c-4cc5-94d6-54eccdf8bdc7&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) ## Video: These Are the Supreme Court Reforms Biden Wants [Watch (HLS stream): These Are the Supreme Court Reforms Biden Wants](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/g6YSZ6rS.m3u8) (1:35)  _Published 2024-07-29. President Joe Biden is proposing some major changes to the Supreme Court that would include term limits for justices and enforceable code of ethics, and even a constitutional amendment that would limit the recent Supreme Court decision that gave former President Donald Trump and all other presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution._ Jul 29, 2024 4:43 PM UTC President Joe Biden is proposing some major changes to the Supreme Court that would include term limits for justices and enforceable code of ethics, and even a constitutional amendment that would limit the recent Supreme Court decision that gave former President Donald Trump and all other presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. by [Kermit Roosevelt III](https://time.com/author/kermit-roosevelt/) ## Kermit Roosevelt III Jul 29, 2024 4:43 PM UTC In 2021, I served on President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court Commission and submitted a [report](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SCOTUS-Report-Final-12.8.21-1.pdf) to the administration discussing potential reforms. Now that President Biden has endorsed some of those proposals, it is time for a more public conversation about what should be done and how. Two points are crucial: First, term limits are the path to a fairer Court, a necessary structural fix for a broken appointment process. Second, they can be accomplished by statute, rather than constitutional amendment. Let’s start with the first point. Currently, the President appoints a new Justice whenever a vacancy appears. That depends on whether a Justice dies unexpectedly, or whether a sitting Justice feels inclined to let the president appoint a successor. We have this system because of the Constitution, but the Constitution was written by people who did not anticipate the party system. In a world without political parties, it does not matter very much how many appointments each president gets. Different presidents might have different views about who the best judges are, but there is no ideological struggle. The vision of the Framers was limited in this regard: Soon after the Founding, the party system emerged, and the parties began to fight for control of the Supreme Court. When the Federalists lost the election of 1800, a lame-duck Federalist Congress reduced the size of the Court to prevent Thomas Jefferson from making appointments. Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans promptly restored the size and later increased it. A Democratic Congress added two more seats during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, increasing the pro-slavery tilt of the Supreme Court and contributing to the infamous _Dred Scott_ decision. A Republican Congress added another when Abraham Lincoln became president, hoping to nudge the Court in the other direction. For a brief period during the 20th century, partisan tensions decreased. The legal elite from whose ranks Supreme Court Justices were drawn had a relatively homogenous worldview, and so Republican appointees like Earl Warren and William Brennan ended up more liberal than Democratic appointees like Byron White. The Court that voted 7-2 in favor of abortion rights in [_Roe v. Wade_](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18) had six Republican appointees, and one of the dissenters was a Democrat. But by the 1980s, the legal elite was polarized and appointees became more reliable in terms of advancing the constitutional vision of the appointing president. We have now reached a stage at which neither party is likely to appoint a Justice without a very good idea of how that person will vote. So we have political parties fighting for control of the Court and stocking it, when they can, with reliable votes. That would be fine if their ability to do so had some relationship to the will of the American people. If a party succeeds in advancing a broadly-shared constitutional vision, the Court will look sensible, or even statesmanlike. But if a party controls the Court despite representing a minority of the American people, the Court will look political and extreme. That is what is happening now. The Republicans have a 6-3 supermajority on the Court, despite losing five of the last eight presidential elections. If each president had an equal influence on the Court—if each president appointed two justices per four-year term, for instance—the Court would be 6-3 in favor of the Democrats. We would have two Justices appointed by Biden, two by Trump, four by Obama, and one by George W. Bush. It is this stark divergence between national elections and control of the Court that makes the current Court seem extreme and political. In fact, we have seen this large a departure from equal presidential impact only once before—the 1857 Supreme Court that decided _Dred Scott_ and tore the nation apart. **_Read More:_** [_These Are the Supreme Court Reforms Biden Wants_](https://time.com/7005019/joe-biden-supreme-court-reforms/) A system of 18-year terms for Justices, where each president gets two appointments per four-year term, is a structural fix for this problem. It would ensure that—eventually—the Court comes back in line with the constitutional vision of the American people. “Eventually” could be a long time, though, and if we want to bring the Court back to where it should be ideologically, the only near-term solution is [expansion](https://time.com/6127193/supreme-court-reform-expansion/). But that is a topic for another time—today, it’s worth asking not how many Justices we _should_ have, but how many we _do_ have. This question turns out to be the key for the second crucial point: term limits can be enacted by statute. They do not need a constitutional amendment. Many think that a constitutional amendment is necessary, pointing to the language of Article III of the Constitution, which [provides](https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm#a3) that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” An 18-year term limit, they say, violates this provision. And so it would, if a Justice were removed from office after 18 years. But the proposals say that after 18 years, a Justice will leave regular service but continue to perform some judicial duties, as retired Justices often do now. Whether that counts as removal from office brings up the question I raised before: how many Supreme Court Justices do we have? The answer is not nine; it is 12\. David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer are all still Supreme Court Justices, even though they are retired. None of them has left their office. That might seem a surprising claim, but it is clearly established by law, practice, and Supreme Court decisions. The federal [statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/371) governing judicial retirement provides two options for judges and Justices: they may retire from the office and cease being judges, or they may “retain the office but retire from regular active service.” If they choose the latter option, they end their period of regular service but they may continue to serve as judges in some cases. (Justice Souter and other retired Justices have, for instance, [decided cases](https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/scotus-for-law-students-retired-justices/) on the Courts of Appeals.) They exercise the judicial power of the United States, which they could not do if they did not retain their offices. Their salaries are constitutionally protected for the same reason. The same sentence of Article III that provides that judges shall hold their offices during good behavior says that their salary “shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” When a lower court judge retired under this section and Congress tried to reduce his salary, the Supreme Court held [unanimously](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/291/339/) that they could not: A retired judge still holds the office as far as Article III is concerned. Term limits are a necessary fix, and they can be accomplished by statute. Whether additional steps such as expansion are necessary is a different question, and one that deserves its own debate. The issue of expansion will, inevitably, be partisan. The issue of term limits need not be. As recently as 2020, the co-founder of the Federalist Society Steven G. Calabresi [called](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/ginsburg-supreme-court-confirmation.html) for it as a good government reform. All Americans should be able to agree that this would be a step in the right direction. ## Transcript [00:00] President Joe Biden is proposing some major changes to the Supreme Court. [00:04] That would include term limits for justices and enforceable code of ethics, [00:09] and even a constitutional amendment that would limit the recent Supreme Court decision [00:14] that gave former President Donald Trump and [00:16] all other presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. [00:19] All these proposals would require congressional approval, [00:22] which could be challenging in this era of a divided Congress. [00:27] Some of the details are still to be worked out. [00:30] Still, term limits have generally been broadly popular in polling. [00:35] This proposal would limit justices to 18 year terms. [00:39] The Supreme Court recently adopted its first formal code of ethics. [00:43] It doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, [00:45] and imposing one would present [00:47] some rather thorny legal questions about exactly who might do the enforcing. [00:52] Limiting or undoing the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding [00:56] presidential immunity would be a taller order in terms of approvals. [01:01] It would require two thirds from both the House and the Senate, [01:05] as well as eventually to be ratified by three quarters of state legislatures. [01:09] These proposals mark a major shift for Biden, [01:11] who was once head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and [01:14] has long resisted calls to reform the Supreme Court. [01:18] Still, they could focus voter attention in [01:20] what's expected to be a tight presidential race. [01:23] Several decisions from the Conservative majority Supreme Court [01:28] have outraged democratic voters, [01:30] including those regarding abortion rights and federal regulatory powers. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/"},"headline":"Why SCOTUS Term Limits Will Lead to a Fairer Court","datePublished":"2024-07-29T16:43:47.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-24T18:02:33.005Z","description":"Kermit Roosevelt III explains why SCOTUS term limits shouldn’t be a partisan issue.","url":"https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/","keywords":["politics","freelance"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Kermit Roosevelt III","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/kermit-roosevelt/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/","name":"Why SCOTUS Term Limits Will Lead to a Fairer Court"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"These Are the Supreme Court Reforms Biden Wants","description":"President Joe Biden is proposing some major changes to the Supreme Court that would include term limits for justices and enforceable code of ethics, and even a constitutional amendment that would limit the recent Supreme Court decision that gave former President Donald Trump and all other presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/g6YSZ6rS/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2024-07-29T21:06:50.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/g6YSZ6rS.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/","duration":"PT1M35S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/7005039/scotus-term-limits-fairer-court-essay/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```