119-HJRES-145 Journalist Public Summary

Headline Summary

A proposed constitutional amendment would replace lifetime tenure for future federal judges with a single 20‑year term, including for Supreme Court justices.

What It Does

H.J. Res. 145 would amend the Constitution so that new appointees to the Supreme Court and to lower federal courts serve one 20‑year term during “good behavior.” After that, they could not be reappointed to the same court. The change would apply only to appointments made after the amendment is ratified, leaving current judges and justices unchanged. Today, Article III judges generally have open‑ended tenure (removable only by impeachment), so this would be a significant shift.

Who’s For It

• Supporters argue regular, predictable turnover would lower the stakes of any single nomination and reduce confirmation showdowns.
• Judicial‑reform advocates say term limits could curb strategic retirements and make the Court’s composition change more gradually over time.
• Backers note the proposal is forward‑looking (it exempts current judges), which they see as a fair way to implement change.

Who’s Against It

• Critics warn fixed terms could weaken judicial independence by making judges consider post‑bench careers or future appointments.
• Some constitutional lawyers argue term limits may conflict with Article III’s traditional understanding of tenure during “good Behaviour,” even if implemented via amendment, and could spur litigation over design details.
• Skeptics highlight transition risks (e.g., handling pending cases when terms expire) and worry about more frequent political battles as seats open on a set schedule.

What’s Next

As of January 31, 2026, the resolution has been introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. To become part of the Constitution, it would need two‑thirds approval in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three‑fourths of the states (38). If Congress advances it, state legislatures would then consider ratification.