Vulnerable House Democrats Stay Silent on Anti-Court-Packing Amendment

A group of House Democrats representing competitive districts have not stated whether they will support a Republican-backed constitutional amendment, HJR 1, that would fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine as the measure heads for a vote in the full House.

Explainer Understanding the Supreme Court’s Impact on Law and Liberty

The debate highlights the political pressure facing vulnerable Democrats as their party’s leaders and activists renew calls to expand the Supreme Court following recent conservative rulings.

The push for the amendment comes amid heightened partisan tensions over the Supreme Court’s direction, with Democrats criticizing recent decisions and some proposing structural changes, while Republicans seek to lock in the current size of the court to prevent future expansion.

GOP Amendment and House Democrats’ Silence

HJR 1, which would require the Supreme Court to remain at nine justices, recently advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and is expected to reach the House floor soon, according to The Federalist. The Federalist contacted 16 House Democrats in battleground districts to ask if they would support the amendment or back efforts to expand the court. Only Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas responded, stating he does "not support increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court" and believes the court "should remain at nine justices, as it has for more than 150 years."

"Maintaining a nine-member Court helps preserve stability and public confidence in one of our nation’s most important institutions."

— Henry Cuellar, U.S. Representative

Cuellar did not clarify how he would vote on HJR 1. The other 15 Democrats—including Adam Gray (CA), Darren Soto (FL), Kathy Castor (FL), Jared Moskowitz (FL), Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI), Susie Lee (NV), Gabriel Vasquez (NM), Tom Suozzi (NY), Laura Gillen (NY), Josh Riley (NY), Donald Davis (NC), Greg Landsman (OH), Marcy Kaptur (OH), Vicente Gonzalez Jr. (TX), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA)—did not respond to requests for comment.

Competing Reform Proposals

Some of these Democrats have supported alternative Supreme Court reforms. Reps. Riley and Landsman have sponsored legislation to impose 18-year term limits on justices, echoing Rep. Hank Johnson’s TERM Act, which seeks to establish regular appointments and limit active service to 18 years, as described in Johnson’s press release. Landsman and Riley also introduced the "Drain the Swamp Act," a package of anti-corruption reforms that includes banning Supreme Court justices and their families from trading stocks and establishing ethics rules for the court, according to Landsman’s office.

Rep. Soto previously co-sponsored term limit legislation for justices during the 116th Congress. These measures reflect ongoing dissatisfaction among some Democrats with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and recent rulings.

Criticism of Supreme Court Rulings

Several of the Democrats contacted have publicly criticized the court’s recent decisions. Rep. Castor called the overturning of Roe v. Wade "un-American" and "downright dangerous" in a 2022 press release. Rep. Lee condemned the Dobbs decision, tweeting that "extremists in all branches of government are slowly stripping away access to basic, lifesaving health care."

Rep. Soto criticized the court’s ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which upheld the president’s authority to remove FTC commissioners, tweeting that the decision added to "Trump’s imperial presidency AGAIN." Rep. Moskowitz denounced the court’s 2024 Garland v. Cargill decision on bump stocks, claiming Trump-appointed justices are "radically and dangerously wrong."

Rep. Kaptur objected to the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, warning that the court’s decisions threaten abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. Gillen, in a recent press release, said the court’s ruling in Mullin v. Doe put "our friends and neighbors’ lives at risk" by allowing the president to end Temporary Protected Status for certain foreign nationals.

Broader Political Stakes

The silence from most battleground Democrats on HJR 1 comes as party leaders, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have signaled openness to expanding the Supreme Court if Democrats regain power. The outcome of the House vote on HJR 1 could influence future efforts to change the court’s structure. Supporters of the amendment argue that bipartisan backing from vulnerable Democrats would make it harder for a future Democratic majority to pursue court expansion.

Democratic leaders and most of the contacted lawmakers have not addressed the amendment directly, and it remains unclear how they will vote when HJR 1 reaches the House floor.