Nine Or Thirteen? Supreme Court Gamble Erupts

Supreme Court building with tall columns and wide steps — Photo: Rena Schild / Shutterstock

House Republicans are moving to write the number nine into the Constitution itself, permanently blocking any future attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

Story Snapshot

House Republicans advanced a constitutional amendment, the “Keep the Nine” resolution, to permanently fix the Supreme Court at nine justices.
Senators Ted Cruz and Todd Young introduced a matching amendment in the Senate.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) countered by calling for the Court to grow to 13 justices, calling it a “baker’s dozen.”
A constitutional amendment needs two-thirds support in Congress and ratification by 38 states, a nearly impossible bar without bipartisan buy-in.
The Court has held steady at nine justices since 1869, surviving Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 attempt to add six more seats.

Republicans Push to Cement the Court at Nine

Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) reintroduced his “Keep the Nine” amendment, formally known as H.J.Res.1, which states plainly that “the Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices”. A House committee report, H. Rept. 119-732, moved the measure forward this year, giving it real legislative momentum instead of leaving it as a symbolic gesture.

Johnson’s office says the goal is simple: stop either party from ever stacking the bench to win rulings it cannot win on the merits. His press release framed the bill as protection against future court-packing schemes, not a reaction to any single court decision. The number nine has held since Reconstruction, and Republicans want that tradition locked in for good.

Senate Republicans Join the Fight

Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Todd Young of Indiana introduced a companion amendment in the Senate, arguing that the size of the nation’s highest court should never depend on which party controls Congress. Once approved by both chambers, the amendment would head to the states for ratification, following the same path every prior constitutional change has taken.

Reuters reported that a Republican-led House panel advanced the amendment in June, with backers citing worries that Democrats might one day try to pack the Court if given the votes. Fox News separately reported that 218 House Democrats blocked an earlier version of the resolution on the floor, showing exactly the partisan resistance Republicans say proves their point.

Clyburn Fires Back With a 13-Justice Plan

Rep. James Clyburn, a senior South Carolina Democrat, told reporters he supports growing the Court from nine seats to 13. “Thirteen is a pretty good number,” Clyburn said. “A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court”. He argued the current justices are not following what he called the “constitutional underpinnings” of the country, a claim that critics say really means he wants judges who rule his way.

While Democrats Threaten to Pack the Supreme Court, RINOs Still Only Want to Fight the GOP

Jim Clyburn did not slip. He did not get boxed in. He volunteered the plan.
On Meet the Press Sunday, Kristen Welker asked the former House Democratic whip whether he supports adding four… pic.twitter.com/zvynRTkc1p

— Patricia 🇺🇸 (@1109Patricia) August 31, 2026

Clyburn’s comments echo a 2021 bill from Senator Ed Markey and Representative Jerry Nadler that would have expanded the Court to 13 justices. That effort stalled after then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi declined to bring it to a floor vote. Commentator Paul Waldman has since argued that court expansion is now unavoidable for Democrats heading into 2028, a sign the idea is far from dead.

Why the Nine-Justice Tradition Matters

The Supreme Court’s size was not always fixed. Congress set it at six justices in 1789, then adjusted the number several times as the country grew, before settling on nine in 1869. That number has held for more than 150 years, surviving even Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 plan to add up to six new justices, a proposal so unpopular it became the textbook definition of “court packing”.

Amending the Constitution is deliberately hard. It requires two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate, then ratification by three-fourths of the states, a threshold designed by the founders to stop fleeting political majorities from rewriting the rulebook. That high bar means Republicans face a steep climb, but it also means any future Democratic expansion plan would need the same near-impossible support to succeed permanently.

For conservatives who watched years of talk about packing the Court to overturn rulings they didn’t like, this amendment offers something rare: a permanent fix instead of another temporary political fight. Locking the number at nine would take the issue off the table for good, protecting the Court’s independence no matter who controls Washington next.