Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2021
Key claim: The bill would establish staggered 18-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices, mandate presidential appointments every two years, and waive Senate advice and consent if the Senate does not act within 120 days of a nomination.
Abstract
(HR5140 · 117th Congress) Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2021 This bill establishes staggered, 18-year terms for Supreme Court Justices and limits the Senate’s advice and consent authority in relation to the appointment of Justices. Specifically, the bill requires the President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice every two years. If the appointment of a Justice would result in more than nine Justices on the Court, then the nine most junior Justices shall make up the panel of Justices exercising judicial power in cases and controversies. Further, any Justice who has served a total of 18 years is deemed retired from regular service and may continue to serve as a Senior Justice. Senior Justices may continue to perform judicial duties assigned to them by the Chief Justice. However, no Justice appointed before the date of enactment shall be counted towards such panel, nor shall they be required to retire from regular active service. In the event of a vacancy on the Court, the Chief Justice must assign the Justice most recently designated as a Senior Justice to serve on the Court until the appointment of a new Justice. Additionally, the Senate’s advice and consent authority is waived if the Senate does not act within 120 days of a Justice’s nomination. Latest action (2022-11-01): Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Why this matters
The proposal would change the timing and frequency of appointments to the Court that resolves disputes over voting, discrimination, reproductive rights, and due process, without itself changing those substantive rights. Regular appointments raise questions about predictability and judicial independence, while the proposed Senate inaction waiver raises constitutional questions about advice and consent. The bill did not advance beyond subcommittee referral in the 117th Congress, so it had no direct effect on litigants or existing protections.