Supreme Court Term Limits: New Bill Mandates 18-Year Terms and Forces Out Current Justices Based on Seniority

This bill, officially titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2025, fundamentally changes how the highest court in the land operates. It scraps the lifetime appointment model for future Justices, replacing it with a fixed, non-renewable 18-year term of active service. The goal is to set up a predictable schedule: Presidents must nominate, and the Senate must confirm, one new Justice during the first and third years following every presidential election. This means one new Justice every two years, every time.

The End of Lifetime Tenure

For anyone appointed after this bill passes, their clock starts ticking the moment they take the bench. They get 18 years, and that’s it for active service. This regular turnover is designed to reduce the political volatility surrounding Supreme Court vacancies, making the Court’s composition more reflective of the current era. It’s like setting a fixed contract length for a high-level executive—everyone knows the end date, which, in theory, lowers the stakes of the confirmation process. Once the 18 years are up, the Justice automatically moves into a retired status, though they can never serve another active term.

The Speed Bump for Current Justices

Here’s where things get complicated and potentially controversial: The bill doesn't wait for current Justices to retire naturally. Instead, it creates a mandatory phase-out. As each new Justice is appointed under the new 18-year term rules, one current Justice is automatically “deemed retired from regular active service.” This forced retirement is determined strictly by seniority, starting with the Justice who has served the longest. If you’re a sitting Justice who’s been there for decades, you’re the first to go as the new system rolls out. This provision effectively revokes the lifetime tenure that current Justices were appointed under, which could lead to significant legal challenges regarding their existing constitutional protections.

Senate’s New Deadline Crunch

The bill also tightens the screws on the Senate’s confirmation process. Under Section 2, the Senate is given a strict 90-day deadline to provide advice and consent on any new nomination from the President. If the nomination is rejected or withdrawn, the President must submit a replacement, and the Senate then gets 120 days for the second go-around. For busy Senators juggling complex legislation, this aggressive timeline could mean rushed hearings or increased political brinkmanship as they try to meet the deadline for these crucial appointments.

The Emergency Backup Plan

What happens if a Justice suddenly retires, becomes disabled, or passes away, dropping the active Court membership below the required nine? Section 3 introduces a temporary fix: The Chief Justice must select a retired Justice to fill in until the Court is back to nine active members. The catch? This selection must be done using a process that is “completely open to the public and involves random selection.” While the intent is transparency, the bill doesn't define what this “random selection” mechanism actually is. This leaves a critical gap, giving the Chief Justice significant, albeit temporary, power over the Court’s composition, depending on how that random process is defined.