At different points in U.S. history, a sitting president has sought to increase the size of the United States Supreme Court, usually by proposing to add new seats to accommodate a broader set of philosophies or to counter decisions a president disagrees with. Court expansion—sometimes labeled a "court-packing" plan—does not automatically happen; it requires congressional action and typically faces significant institutional and political resistance. This explainer outlines when and why presidents have proposed enlarging the Court, how the process would work, and the core arguments for and against such changes in an evergreen, factual manner.
Historical Context and Notable Examples
The modern conversation about enlarging the U.S. Supreme Court began with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 proposal to add up to six additional justices, after the Court repeatedly struck down key New Deal programs. More recently, during the 2020 presidential cycle, then-candidate Joe Biden formed a commission to study reform, including expansion, in response to debates over the Court’s legitimacy and the handling of a vacancy in an election year.
Although presidents have floated expansion ideas in other eras, large, formal proposals have been rare since the mid-20th century. Most plans target modest additions rather than wholesale restructuring, and none have resulted in sustained increases beyond temporary or situational adjustments. Historical efforts show a common pattern: a president or administration perceives a jurisprudential imbalance and seeks to correct it through structural change.
How Court Expansion Would Work
Because the Constitution does not fix the number of justices, Congress can change the size of the Supreme Court by statute. In practice, this means a president would need to advocate for legislation, secure party-line support or bipartisan consensus, and navigate committee processes in both the House and Senate. The debate typically centers on jurisdiction, workload, and the institutional optics of adding seats rather than on statutory interpretation alone.
Presidents cannot expand the Court by executive order; any increase requires new legislation that clearly states the added seats, eligibility criteria, and effective date. Even if enacted, newly confirmed justices might arrive years after a proposal is introduced, and the political calculus can shift substantially between introduction, debate, and final passage.
Key Legislative Steps
- Introduction of a bill that specifies the new total number of seats.
- Committee hearings on separation of powers, institutional norms, and practical impacts.
- Floor votes in the House and Senate, often requiring simple majorities under standard reconciliation rules.
- Presidential signature and subsequent nomination and confirmation of new justices.
Common Policy Goals Behind Expansion Proposals
Advocates of enlarging the Court usually emphasize either representativeness, speedier case resolution, or ideological balance. Some argue that expanding the number of justices would reduce the stakes of each appointment, lower the temperature around confirmations, and insulate the Court from perceptions of partisan entrenchment. Others contend that more justices would improve the capacity to handle a growing docket, modernize rules for technology and procedure, or bring a wider range of professional experience to the bench.
Critics typically counter that expansion risks normalizing the idea of structural manipulation for short-term advantage, undermining the perceived neutrality of the judiciary, and starting a cycle of reciprocal expansions by future administrations. They also note that enlargement does not guarantee desired outcomes, as newly seated justices may vote in unexpected ways and institutional norms may resist rapid change.
Notable Plans and Size Comparisons
Various proposals have suggested different target sizes, often ranging from modest additions to more substantial increases. Public discussions typically reference well-known plans, such as the 2021 Democratic proposals in the House and Senate that would have expanded the Court to 13 justices, a return to the historical high used between 1863 and 1866. Other plans have proposed 15 or 19 justices, often justified by workload metrics or by analogy to other democratic high courts.
Because expansions would remain subject to ongoing political negotiation, actual legislative outcomes are difficult to predict. The following table summarizes notable proposals in modern U.S. politics, their objectives, and estimated impacts on the size and functioning of the Court.
| Proposal or Plan | Target Size | Primary Objectives | Status or Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDR 1937 Plan | Up to 15 justices (add 6) | Counter rulings against New Deal legislation | Defeated in committee; reshaped relations with Court |
| 2021 House Bill H.R. 1862 / S.1088 | 13 justices | Reduce perceived entrenchment; restore prior configuration | Passed House subcommittee; no full House or Senate vote |
| Various Democratic discussions (2020–2022) | 15 or 19 justices | Address workload and representativeness; diversify institutional perspectives | Discussed in commissions and hearings; no enacted change |
| Modern academic proposals | \15 or 18 justices | Balance workload per justice; align with peer high courts | Nonbinding policy research; not introduced as legislation |
Institutional Considerations and Constraints
Expanding the Supreme Court affects not only jurisprudence but also administrative operations, public trust, and interbranch relations. More justices typically mean additional law clerks, staff, and logistical demands for the Court and its building, which can strain existing facilities. It can also intensify norms around lifetime tenure, because each added seat represents a long-term appointment with significant constitutional influence.
Congress also weighs whether enlargement would change collegial dynamics, such as conference deliberations or the frequency of tied votes. Some proposals include term limits or staggered appointments to reduce perceptions of stacking, though those ideas would require constitutional or statutory changes beyond size alone. Ultimately, whether a president’s expansion effort advances depends on coalition-building, public opinion, and the perceived legitimacy of the underlying motivations.
Public Perception and Long-Term Implications
Because Supreme Court size is a rare and consequential issue, announcements about expansion tend to draw significant media and public attention. Supporters often describe the move as a necessary correction to preserve the Court’s functionality and legitimacy, while opponents warn that it could erode institutional stability and politicize the judiciary further. The long-term implications depend on how carefully any expansion is justified, how new justices perform once seated, and whether the public views the change as a legitimate reform rather than a partisan tactic.
Understanding when a U.S. president has sought to increase the size of the Supreme Court helps clarify the boundaries of presidential power, the role of Congress in structural decisions, and the ongoing debates about the Court’s role in American democracy. This explainer is designed to remain useful as plans, proposals, and political contexts evolve over time.