On September 10, 2026, the House GOP majority brought forward H.J. Res. 8, a constitutional amendment designed to explicitly set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. The measure fell short of the two‑thirds majority needed, losing 212–206. While every Republican on the floor voted in favor, only one Democrat, Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, supported the proposal.
Historical context of the nine‑justice court
The original Constitution did not specify the size of the nation’s highest court. Between 1863 and 1869, a series of statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment effectively established nine seats, a configuration that has endured for more than 150 years. The 1869 Judiciary Act, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant after a pocket‑veto by President Andrew Johnson, cemented the nine‑justice structure.
Legal scholars argue that the amendment’s “due process” language implicitly supports the nine‑justice arrangement, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain court‑packing proposals in 1937 and 1938 reinforced that view.
Democratic opposition and the DSA’s agenda
Democratic leaders in Congress have consistently opposed the amendment, voting 1–205 against it. Some Democrats argue that expanding the Court would allow the nation’s evolving values to be reflected in its jurisprudence. The article cites concerns that the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and far‑left activists view a larger bench as a pathway to embed “hard‑left judicial philosophy” in the federal judiciary.
Critics on the left claim that the Republican effort is a reaction to past Democratic attempts to alter the Court’s composition, pointing to historic attempts by President Franklin Roosevelt to “pack” the Court in the 1930s. However, the article notes that such proposals never succeeded and were widely viewed as unconstitutional.
President Trump’s perspective
President Trump, whose administration has repeatedly warned that a larger Court could threaten the rule of law, praised the amendment effort as a necessary safeguard for the Constitution. He has described the prospect of adding seats as one of his greatest concerns, emphasizing that a stable, nine‑justice Court is essential for preserving originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
While the amendment did not pass, the vote underscores a deep partisan divide over the future of the nation’s highest court. Republicans framed the measure as a defense of constitutional stability, whereas Democrats portrayed it as an attempt to block progressive legal reforms.
What comes next?
For the amendment to become law, it must clear a two‑thirds majority in both the House and the Senate and then be ratified by three‑quarters of the states. Given the narrow margin in the House and the current composition of the Senate, the proposal faces a steep uphill battle.
Meanwhile, the debate over the Court’s size is likely to remain a flashpoint in national politics, especially as both parties continue to vie for influence over the judiciary through appointments and legislative strategies.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
