Over 50 groups have rallied behind a legislative proposal to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices.

The Hill reported that a recent legislative initiative spearheaded by Representative Hank Johnson seeks to establish 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices to bolster court accountability and resolve its perceived legitimacy issues.

The TERM Act, also known as the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, was originally brought forward in 2022 by Representative Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia. Despite its initial promise, the bill did not progress beyond the committee stage during its first iteration.

Resurgence and Redefined Goals For Judicial Reform

In light of its initial defeat, Johnson reintroduced the TERM Act in 2023. The legislation proposes a significant transformation in how Supreme Court justices serve, setting a limit of 18 years for their tenure. This move ensures constant rejuvenation of the court's perspectives and alignment with contemporary democratic values.

Under the proposed TERM Act, a mechanism would be established where the president nominates a Supreme Court justice every two years, coinciding with the first and third year after a presidential election. This cadence is intended to maintain a balance and regular infusion of new thoughts into the judiciary.

Advocacy and Public Sentiment Towards Supreme Court Reform

The push for the TERM Act is bolstered by support from a coalition of 56 advocacy groups, including prominent organizations such as Accountable.US, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Voices for Progress.

These groups have rallied behind the legislation in response to a series of controversial Supreme Court decisions that have had far-reaching effects on issues including voting rights and campaign finance.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center has noted a decline in the Supreme Court's favorability, highlighting growing public concern about the court's decisions and their impact on American democracy. Johnson picked up this sentiment when presenting the bill anew, underlining the timing and relevance of these proposed changes.

Significant Voices in the Debate Over Judicial Terms

Leaders of advocacy groups have been vocal about their discontent with the current state of the Supreme Court. Christina Harvey, the executive director of Stand Up America, emphasized the erosion of democratic principles due to the Supreme Court's recent rulings.

She pointed to such decisions undermining voting rights and allowing unrestricted corporate contributions into elections as primary drivers for endorsing term limits.

Harvey sharply criticized the lifetime appointment model, saying, "No one deserves power for life," an assertion that underscores the broader push for judicial reforms similar to those found in state-level courts where term limits or age limits are the norm.

Legislative Challenges and Prospects for the TERM Act

Despite the robust backing, the TERM Act faces an uphill battle in Congress, which is divided on numerous issues, including judicial reform. The primary resistance stems from a longstanding tradition of lifetime appointments, perceived as a pillar of judicial independence.

However, proponents of the act argue that the Supreme Court should evolve with the governmental structures around it to better reflect the current ethos of governance and public accountability.

Representative Johnson expressed his concerns: "Lifetime tenure... leads to a Court that is insulated from, and unaccountable to, the American people, which is bad for democracy.” He believes the TERM Act is essential to address this insulation and reestablish the court’s legitimacy.

Navigating Future Implications for the Supreme Court

The proposed implementation of the TERM Act would mean that the most senior justices would be transitioned to a senior status first, allowing for a staggered reintroduction of the term limits. This phased approach minimizes disruptions while initiating the long-term reforms envisioned.

The TERM Act marks a significant point in the ongoing discussion about the structure and influence of the U.S. Supreme Court. Supported by strong advocacy and part of a wider push for judicial accountability, the proposed reforms seek to adjust the power dynamics within the court.

This adjustment ensures the court stays adaptive and representative of the changing democratic context. If enacted, these modifications could deeply alter the composition and functioning of the highest court in the future.