Do Americans support expanding the court?

The debate surrounding the expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court, often termed "court packing," has intensified amidst declining public trust and perceived partisan rulings. While historically the size of the Court has varied, it has remained at nine justices since 1869. Recent polling data indicates a nuanced but growing public appetite for Supreme Court reform, with a plurality or slight majority of Americans expressing support for increasing the number of justices, particularly when framed as a response to perceived ideological imbalance. This article explores the historical context of Court size, the arguments for and against expansion, and the implications of current public sentiment for the judiciary's future and its role in American democracy.

The composition and perceived impartiality of the U.S. Supreme Court have become subjects of intense public and political scrutiny, particularly in recent years. As the Court navigates a landscape marked by highly consequential and often divisive rulings, the question of its structural integrity and independence has risen to the forefront of national discourse. One of the most contentious proposals for reform is the expansion of the number of Supreme Court justices, a practice pejoratively known as "court packing." This concept, which involves altering the Court's size by legislative act, carries significant historical baggage and profound implications for the balance of power within the federal government.

Against this backdrop, understanding public opinion on court expansion is crucial for legal professionals, policymakers, and the judiciary itself. Recent polling data suggests a shifting sentiment among Americans, with a notable increase in support for such a measure. This article delves into the historical precedents for altering the Supreme Court's size, examines the contemporary arguments for and against expansion, and analyzes the current state of public support, offering insights into what these trends might mean for the future of the nation's highest judicial body.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article III, Section 1, vests judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," but notably does not specify the number of justices. Consequently, the size of the Supreme Court has been determined by Congress through statute and has fluctuated significantly throughout American history. The Judiciary Act of 1789 initially established a Court with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. Over the subsequent decades, as the nation expanded and new judicial circuits were created, Congress adjusted the Court's size to accommodate the need for justices to preside over these circuits. For instance, a seventh justice was added in 1807, and the Court briefly reached ten justices in 1863 during the Civil War.

The most recent and enduring change occurred with the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number of justices at nine, where it has remained ever since. Prior to this, Congress had, in 1866, reduced the Court's size to seven justices, partly to deny President Andrew Johnson appointments during Reconstruction. The most famous attempt to alter the Court's composition for overtly political reasons was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "court-packing plan" in 1937. Faced with a conservative Supreme Court that had struck down key New Deal legislation, Roosevelt proposed a bill that would allow him to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70 who did not retire, up to a maximum of six new appointments. This proposal, widely criticized as an attempt to manipulate the judiciary, ultimately failed in Congress, though it is often credited with influencing a shift in the Court's jurisprudence, famously dubbed "the switch in time that saved nine."

The contemporary debate over Supreme Court expansion is fueled by a confluence of factors, including perceived partisan judicial activism, declining public trust in the institution, and the highly politicized nature of judicial appointments. Recent polling data reveals a complex picture of public sentiment. A Marquette University Law School poll from October 2023 indicated that 54% of Americans supported increasing the number of justices, with 46% opposing, marking the highest level of support recorded by Marquette since 2019. Similarly, a Morning Consult/Politico poll around the same time showed a net +8 support for expansion. However, other surveys present slightly different figures; a February 2026 Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll found 39% support for expanding the Court to 13 justices, 32% opposition, and 29% unsure, suggesting that while there is a plurality of support, it is not an overwhelming majority.

Crucially, support for expansion often correlates with perceptions of the Court's ideological leanings and its approval ratings, which have plummeted to historic lows. Gallup reported in October 2023 that 58% of Americans disapproved of the Court's job performance, with only 41% approving, and fewer than half expressed a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in the judicial branch. Many Americans believe the justices' decisions are primarily motivated by politics rather than law. Proponents of expansion argue that it is a necessary measure to restore balance, legitimacy, and public confidence in an institution perceived as ideologically skewed, particularly after controversial rulings and the perceived politicization of the appointment process. They point to historical precedents of Congress altering the Court's size as evidence of its constitutional permissibility and a legitimate legislative check on the judiciary.

Conversely, opponents of court expansion, including some legal scholars and even members of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, express profound disagreement over its wisdom. They argue that such a move would further politicize the judiciary, undermine its independence, and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations to engage in tit-for-tat expansions, ultimately eroding the Court's credibility. The argument is often made that the Supreme Court's long history has largely been one of balance, making expansion unnecessary. While the Constitution grants Congress the power to determine the Court's size, the norm of a nine-justice Court has held for over 150 years, and any deviation is seen by critics as an extreme act that should only be considered in a national crisis. It is also noteworthy that while court expansion garners some support, other reforms, such as term limits for justices, enjoy significantly broader bipartisan popularity.

The question of whether Americans support expanding the Supreme Court is complex, with recent data indicating a growing, albeit not universal, openness to the idea, largely driven by concerns over the Court's perceived politicization and declining legitimacy. For legal practitioners, this ongoing debate signals a period of potential instability and heightened scrutiny for the federal judiciary. The prospect of legislative action, such as the proposed Judiciary Act of 2023 (S.1616/H.R.3422) to add four seats, remains a significant political football, with its success dependent on shifting political majorities and public pressure.

Attorneys should closely monitor legislative developments and public discourse surrounding judicial reform, as changes to the Court's structure could profoundly impact constitutional interpretation, legal precedent, and the overall administration of justice. The push for expansion, alongside other reform proposals like term limits and ethics codes, reflects a broader societal demand for accountability and perceived fairness within the judicial branch. The future size and composition of the Supreme Court will undoubtedly remain a critical battleground, shaping not only the Court's institutional integrity but also the trajectory of American law for generations to come.