HJRES 1 – Constitutional amendment to require a nine‑justice Supreme Court
Data as of September 1, 2026 · Refresh this data →
Sponsored by Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] · 2 cosponsors
Plain-English Summary
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the Supreme Court to be composed of nine Justices—one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
Current Status
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 84.
What Problem This Addresses
The current Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, allowing Congress to alter the Court's size, which has led to periodic changes and political debate. Proponents argue that a fixed nine‑justice composition would provide stability and prevent perceived court‑packing. Critics contend that flexibility may be useful for addressing future institutional needs.
Outlook
As of July 6, 2026 the resolution has been placed on the House Calendar (No. 84) and reported by the Judiciary Committee, indicating it is ready for floor consideration; however, passage is not guaranteed and depends on subsequent House and Senate votes. The likelihood of enactment remains uncertain pending broader legislative support.
Arguments From Supporters
Sponsor Rep. Andy Biggs and co‑sponsors assert that restoring the original nine‑justice structure honors historical precedent and curtails partisan attempts to alter the Court’s composition. They argue that a fixed size enhances public confidence in judicial independence and reduces future political pressures to change the Court’s makeup.
Arguments From Opponents
No organized opposition to HJRES 1 has been identified in the public record or committee reports.
Where Both Sides Agree
Both supporters and any potential critics agree that the Constitution’s amendment process should be used transparently and that the judiciary’s independence is a core principle. There is consensus that any change should be clearly articulated in the constitutional text to avoid ambiguity.
Core Disagreement
Supporters contend that a nine‑justice limit is necessary to preserve institutional stability, while opponents (though not formally organized) might argue that Congress should retain flexibility to adjust the Court’s size in response to future needs. Disagreement also exists over whether a constitutional amendment is the appropriate vehicle versus statutory amendment.
Constitutional Basis Cited
The sponsor cites Article V of the Constitution as the authority for Congress to propose amendments, and the resolution follows the two‑step process: passage by a two‑thirds majority in both chambers and ratification by three‑fourths of the states. The amendment would be the first to explicitly set the Supreme Court’s size, altering the long‑standing practice of statutory adjustments.
Economic Considerations
The amendment is expected to have minimal direct fiscal impact, as the number of justices would remain at nine and no new positions or salaries would be created. Indirectly, a stable Court size could affect litigation timelines and related legal costs, but the magnitude of such effects remains uncertain and would depend on broader judicial administration outcomes.
Sections beyond the plain-English summary are AI-synthesized analysis based on the sourced legislative record from Congress.gov, read, edited where needed, and approved by a human editor before publication. Full methodology: Editorial & Methodology.
← All Records