🏛️ Civics · Advanced · Policy resolution

Resolved: The United States should limit Supreme Court justices to fixed 18-year terms.

Justices serve "during good Behaviour," which in practice means for life. A common proposal would give each justice 18 years of active service, so each president would fill one seat every two years. Would it help the Court or hurt it?

Background

Article III of the Constitution says federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” Justices may be removed only by impeachment, so they serve until they retire or die. The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reported in December 2021 that average service was about fifteen years until the late 1960s and has risen to roughly twenty-six years. The commission studied term limits in detail but took no position on whether to adopt them, and its members disagreed. [1][2]

The most common proposal is a staggered 18-year term: with nine justices, one seat would open every two years, so each four-year presidential term would bring two appointments. Former justices would usually keep their salary and might serve on lower federal courts. A central question is whether this needs a constitutional amendment, which requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states, or could be done by ordinary law. A Congressional Research Service report notes that many commentators believe an amendment is required, while some scholars argue a carefully written statute would be constitutional; no court has ruled on the question. [2][3]

The idea has drawn support across the political spectrum at different times. In a July 2022 AP-NORC poll, 67 percent of U.S. adults favored a set term for justices. Nearly every state uses a term of years or a mandatory retirement age for its own high court. [4][3][5]

Where the facts themselves are disputed

Can Congress set 18-year terms by ordinary law?

  • Many scholars, including some who favor term limits, say the Good Behaviour Clause guarantees life tenure, so a constitutional amendment is required.
  • Others argue that if justices keep their office and salary as judges and move to other federal courts after 18 years, a statute could satisfy the clause.

Would regular appointments make confirmation fights calmer or more frequent?

  • Supporters say predictable openings would lower the stakes of each one, because no single seat could tip the Court for decades.
  • Critics say a seat on the ballot in every presidential and midterm cycle would make the Court a constant campaign issue.

Key terms

Good Behaviour Clause
Article III’s rule that federal judges hold office “during good Behaviour,” generally read as life tenure unless impeached and removed.
Staggered terms
Terms that start and end at different times, so members leave one by one instead of all at once.
Senior status
A form of semi-retirement for federal judges, who keep their office and salary but take a lighter caseload.
Article V
The part of the Constitution describing how it can be amended.
Judicial independence
The idea that judges should decide cases on the law without pressure from elected officials, voters or concern for their own careers.

Both sides at their strongest

Each argument is written the way its best advocates would make it, followed by the strongest answer from the other side. Use them to build your case and to prepare for the other one.

Affirmative

Fixed 18-year terms would make appointments regular and fair, keep the Court connected to the country over time, and lower the stakes of each vacancy.

  1. A1 Appointments now depend on chance.

    Why Under life tenure, vacancies come whenever a justice dies or retires. Some presidents appoint several justices in one term and others none, so the Court’s makeup turns on luck and timing more than on elections.

    Evidence Records of appointments by president; the CRS report’s discussion of irregular vacancies; the presidential commission’s report.

    Best answer The negative answers that under the plan vacancies could still come early through death or resignation, and the Senate could still refuse to confirm, so regularity isn’t guaranteed.

  2. A2 Tenures have grown much longer.

    Why Average service has risen from about 15 years to roughly 26, and recent nominees have been in their late 40s and early 50s. One appointment can now shape the law for a generation, which raises the stakes of every vacancy.

    Evidence The presidential commission’s tenure figures; Brennan Center analysis of nominees’ ages and service lengths.

    Best answer The negative replies that long service brings experience and stability, and longer lives are a reason to value judges’ wisdom, not to cut it short.

  3. A3 It ends strategic retirements and service in poor health.

    Why Justices sometimes time their retirement so a president of their choosing can replace them, or stay on while ill. A fixed term removes both incentives.

    Evidence The CRS report’s list of criticisms of life tenure, including declining health and strategic retirements; historical examples discussed by legal scholars.

    Best answer The negative replies that a fixed term creates its own strategies, such as justices thinking about their next job as the term nears its end.

  4. A4 Nearly every other high court has limits.

    Why Almost every state supreme court and the top courts of other constitutional democracies use terms or retirement ages and still protect judicial independence. Their experience shows limits can work.

    Evidence State constitutions on judicial terms; Brennan Center surveys of state and foreign high courts.

    Best answer The negative answers that many states elect their judges, which is a different system, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s national role makes comparisons imperfect.

Negative

Life tenure protects judicial independence and stability, and term limits would bring new problems and a serious constitutional risk.

  1. N1 Life tenure protects independence.

    Why The framers gave judges tenure during good behavior so they could rule against popular opinion and powerful officials without fear for their jobs. A judge who must plan a next career may not be as free.

    Evidence Federalist No. 78 on permanent tenure; the R Street Institute’s 2018 analysis of conflicts of interest from post-Court careers.

    Best answer The affirmative answers that 18 years with a guaranteed lifetime salary still protects independence, and most proposals let former justices keep serving as judges.

  2. N2 It would make the Court a constant campaign issue.

    Why If every presidential term brings exactly two seats, every election becomes a fight over the Court, and justices may come to be seen as partisan appointees.

    Evidence Critics’ arguments summarized in the presidential commission’s report; the 2018 R Street analysis.

    Best answer The affirmative replies that the Court is already a campaign issue, and predictable openings lower the stakes of each one.

  3. N3 Doing it by statute may be unconstitutional.

    Why The Good Behaviour Clause is widely read to guarantee life tenure. A law forcing justices off the Court could be struck down and would invite a crisis; an amendment is very hard to pass.

    Evidence The CRS report stating that many commentators believe an amendment is required; National Constitution Center summary of the debate.

    Best answer The affirmative answers that the resolution can be met by an amendment, and that some scholars argue a careful statute keeping justices in office as judges would be valid.

  4. N4 The details create new problems.

    Why Moving to the new system means deciding what happens to sitting justices, how to fill seats that open early, and what to do if the Senate refuses to confirm. Each fix could add new disputes.

    Evidence The presidential commission’s chapter on design questions; the CRS discussion of a Court with more or fewer than nine justices during the transition.

    Best answer The affirmative replies that these design questions have workable answers, such as phasing in the system with new appointees only.

Strawman or steelman?

A strawman is a weak copy of the other side’s view, easy to knock down and unfair to the people who hold it. A steelman is that view at its strongest. Answer the steelman, and you’ve answered the real argument. (More on steelmanning.)

Affirmative

Strawman “They want to pack the Court with judges who’ll rule their way.”

Why it’s unfair Supporters across the political spectrum back 18-year terms as a neutral rule that gives every president the same number of appointments.

Steelman Regular, staggered terms would give each president two appointments, end the role of chance and strategic retirements, and keep the Court connected to the country over time while preserving independence.

Negative

Strawman “They just like the current justices and want to keep them.”

Why it’s unfair Opponents argue from the Constitution’s text, judicial independence and practical problems, and many proposals wouldn’t affect sitting justices anyway.

Steelman Life tenure protects judges from political and career pressure; term limits risk making every election about the Court and may require an amendment, which is very hard to pass.

Weak arguments to avoid

Affirmative

  • “The justices are too old to do the job.” It’s an attack on people rather than the system, and age alone says little about a judge’s ability.

Negative

  • “The framers chose life tenure, so it must be right forever.” The framers also created Article V so the Constitution could be changed; argue about why life tenure still works.

Questions for cross-examination

Ask the Affirmative

  1. What happens if a justice dies in year five?
  2. Would your plan need a constitutional amendment, and if so, how would it get three-fourths of the states?
  3. Would former justices be able to take jobs with law firms or run for office?

Ask the Negative

  1. Is it fair that one president may appoint three justices while another appoints none?
  2. How do state high courts protect independence with term limits?
  3. Would a guaranteed lifetime salary after 18 years still protect independence?

Reading on both sides

Read at least one source from each side before you debate. Look up each source’s author and publisher too: who wrote it is part of the evidence.

Background and overviews

Both sides in one place

Mostly Affirmative

Mostly Negative

Practice this topic

Sources for the background

  1. Final Report, Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court (2021-12). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  2. Proposals to Modify Supreme Court Justices' Tenure: Legal Considerations (R46731), Congressional Research Service (2021-03-24). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  3. Can Congress enact Supreme Court term limits without a constitutional amendment?, National Constitution Center (2024-07-31). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  4. AP-NORC poll: 2 in 3 in US favor term limits for justices, AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (2022-07). Accessed 2026-10-25.
  5. Why Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices Make Sense, Brennan Center for Justice (2024-08-19). Accessed 2026-10-25.

Teddy Rook Book doesn’t take a side on this resolution. Updated 2026-10-26.

@teddyrookbook GitHub