Buttigieg’s Power Play Targets SCOTUS

man in white shirt and blue tie speaking at a podium — Photo: Jeremy Bustin Photography / Shutterstock

Pete Buttigieg is renewing his push to remake the Supreme Court’s structure, putting the nine‑justice, lifetime‑tenure tradition directly in the crosshairs.

Story Snapshot

Buttigieg is again promoting plans to expand the Supreme Court and add term limits for justices.
His ideas would grow the Court to 13–15 members and reshape how justices are picked, aiming to curb “partisan warfare.”
Democrats frame these moves as “reform,” while Republicans warn they are court‑packing to claw back power from a constitutional conservative majority.
House Republicans and allies are pushing constitutional amendments to lock the Court at nine justices and stop any expansion.

Buttigieg Re‑Ups His Supreme Court Expansion Agenda

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is once again talking about big structural changes to the Supreme Court, echoing the ideas he pushed during his 2020 presidential campaign. In recent media appearances he has called the Court “rogue” and argued that it “doesn’t have to be nine” justices, saying the country should “set up a court that fits this country.” Buttigieg backs expanding the Court’s size and changing its composition, claiming this would reduce partisan pressure and calm nomination fights.

Buttigieg has floated several models, but two stand out. One is to expand the Court to 13 justices, matching the 13 federal judicial circuits. Another, known as the “balanced bench” plan, would go even further and raise the number to 15. Under that idea, ten justices would be “affiliated” with the major parties—five aligned with Democrats and five with Republicans—while the remaining five would be selected by the first ten. Supporters say this would force compromise and stop one party from locking in total control of the Court.

Inside the “Balanced Bench” and Term‑Limit Proposals

The “balanced bench” framework Buttigieg has endorsed would fundamentally change how the Court works day to day. Ten partisan‑affiliated justices would still be appointed through the traditional path of presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, but those ten would then have to agree—unanimously or by a strong supermajority—on five additional “nonpolitical” colleagues drawn from lower federal courts. Those five would serve one‑year, nonrenewable terms and would be chosen two years in advance to avoid picking judges for specific upcoming cases.

The plan even includes a built‑in shutdown switch. If the ten core justices cannot agree on the slate of five temporary members, the Supreme Court would be treated as lacking a quorum and would be unable to hear cases that year. Critics across the spectrum warn this would invite chaos and encourage political brinkmanship, not stability. Buttigieg also backs imposing term limits on justices, commonly discussed as staggered 18‑year terms that would give each president a predictable number of appointments. Democratic senators have already introduced bills along these lines, proposing 18‑year active terms with justices moving to senior status afterward.

Democrats Call It “Reform,” Republicans Call It Court‑Packing

Democratic activists and elected officials have made Supreme Court “reform” a major plank in their long‑term agenda, especially after a series of conservative rulings and Trump‑era appointments. They argue that expanding the Court and adding term limits are needed to restore “balance, integrity, and independence” and rebuild public trust. Groups like Take Back the Court say adding four seats is the “only practical” way to counter what they call conservatives’ “theft” of the Court and protect rights they see under threat.

Republicans say these proposals are classic court‑packing, aimed at punishing the current conservative majority for decisions the left dislikes. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has warned that adding seats is a “raw bid for ideological control of the bench” and has vowed to force votes on constitutional amendments to lock the Court at nine justices. Senator Ted Cruz and others have introduced amendments with the same goal, arguing that a fixed nine‑justice Court protects judicial independence and stops Congress from weaponizing structural changes. Conservative legal voices also stress that while Congress can change the Court’s size, history shows this power has almost always been used sparingly, and using it now for partisan gain would badly damage the Court’s legitimacy.

Congress Holds the Power, But Norms Are on the Line

Legal experts across the political spectrum agree on one basic fact: the Constitution does not set the number of Supreme Court justices, and Congress has adjusted that number several times in American history. Article III establishes “one Supreme Court” but leaves its size to lawmakers, and historical practice has seen the bench range from five to ten members before settling at nine. That tradition of nine has become a strong norm, even if it is not written into the Constitution, which is why many scholars warn that sudden expansion for partisan reasons would look like an attack on the Court’s independence.

Recent hearings in Congress have laid out the stakes clearly. Republican members argue that expansion plans risk delegitimizing the Court and upsetting the balance of powers, especially when the current majority has delivered major wins for constitutionalists on issues like executive authority, immigration, and election law. Democrats reply that public confidence is already low and say structural changes, including term limits and ethics rules, are needed to “restore Americans’ trust.” For conservatives who value limited government, stable institutions, and the original meaning of the Constitution, Buttigieg’s renewed push is a reminder that the battle over the Supreme Court’s future is far from over.