House Set to Vote Today on Constitutional Amendment Locking Supreme Court at Nine Justices

Since Rep. Jim Clyburn's August 30 endorsement of a 13-justice Supreme Court, the argument over the Court's size has moved from op-eds and floor speeches to an actual vote. The House is scheduled to take up H.J. Res. 1 today, Wednesday, September 2, according to comments Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) made Tuesday, as reported by SCOTUSblog.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), is one sentence: "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices." Right now that number is set by ordinary statute, the Judiciary Act of 1869, which Congress can change with a simple majority. Biggs wants it locked into the Constitution instead.

A constitutional amendment needs two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate, then ratification by 38 of 50 state legislatures within seven years of submission, according to the text of Article V cited in reporting from The Epoch Times and ZeroHedge. Club for Growth, which is urging a yes vote and will score it on its 2026 congressional scorecard, notes the House is bringing the measure up under a suspension of the rules, meaning it needs the same two-thirds threshold just to clear the chamber.

Why Republicans say it's urgent

Biggs argues the threat is real, not hypothetical. He points to the Judiciary Act of 2021, which would have added four seats to reach thirteen justices, and to renewed talk from Democrats including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Rep. Clyburn about expanding the Court. "How can the Supreme Court protect Americans from government overreach if the same government can pack the court whenever it dislikes a ruling?" Biggs asked during June committee debate, according to MS NOW. Speaker Johnson made a similar case Tuesday: "If we go down the road of packing the Supreme Court, it turns into a political palooza, and it would not serve the country." Scalise's office framed the vote as forcing Democrats to answer for calls from the Democratic Socialists of America to "abolish the Supreme Court."

Why critics call it theater

Rep. Al Green's (D-Texas) bill to expand the Court to 13 justices, introduced May 4, has zero cosponsors and hasn't moved out of the Judiciary Committee. Earlier versions from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) in 2021 and 2023 never got a committee vote either. H.J. Res. 1 itself passed committee 15-8 on a straight party-line vote in June, per MS NOW's reporting.

MS NOW's opinion piece argues the amendment concedes something Republicans might not intend: that the Constitution never fixed the Court's size in the first place. Article III, Section 1 says only that judicial power "shall be vested in one supreme Court," leaving Congress to set the number, a structure dating to the Judiciary Act of 1789. Whether the current push represents necessary insurance or unnecessary drama is a judgment call Republicans and Democrats are making differently.

What happens next

Even if H.J. Res. 1 clears the House today, it faces a much harder Senate math: 67 votes, in a chamber where Democrats can filibuster and where no comparable expansion bill has advanced either. The practical stakes of today's vote are less about changing the Court's size and more about the roll call itself, a record Republicans plan to use against vulnerable Democrats heading into the midterms, and one Democrats who vote no will have to explain to voters directly.

The House Judiciary Committee's own report on the bill cites the stalled Green and Johnson bills as its justification for acting now. Whether locking nine justices into the Constitution actually stops a future Congress from trying to pack the Court, given that amendments themselves can eventually be repealed by another amendment, is a question none of Wednesday's floor speeches has answered.