A Democratic lawmaker is making a move that the Supreme Court reform conversation has been building toward for years. Rep. Johnny Olszewski of Maryland has introduced the Reform of Bench Eligibility Act, known as the ROBE Act, a constitutional amendment that would cap Supreme Court justices’ terms at 18 years and end lifetime appointments to the nation’s highest court.
If passed, it would apply to current justices, meaning Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, all of whom have served more than 18 years, would be the first affected.
Thomas is the longest-serving justice on the current court, having been appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, giving him over 34 years on the bench.
Alito and Roberts were both appointed by President George W. Bush and have served for over 20 years each. They are the only three sitting justices who would exceed the 18-year limit under the proposed legislation.
The bill includes provisions for a “fair and orderly transition” to the new system and is designed to apply prospectively to future appointments while also addressing current justices who have already exceeded the proposed limit.
The argument for term limits is not new; it has been a staple of court reform conversations for years across the political spectrum. What makes it more urgent now is the combination of a 6-3 conservative supermajority that has overturned decades of legal precedent on abortion, voting rights, and regulatory authority, and a series of ethics controversies involving sitting justices that have eroded public confidence in the court’s independence.
“Faith in the Court depends on its legitimacy as a fair and independent institution,” Olszewski said. “Recent rulings that have thrown out decades of legal precedent, combined with ethically dubious behavior by sitting judges, are testing that faith. Justices should not be hobnobbing at White House dinners and flying on the private jets of friends who have business before the Court. By establishing term limits, we can reduce the political gamesmanship surrounding appointments, restore balance to the process, and strengthen the integrity of the Court.”
Olszewski’s office also pointed to a structural concern that has been growing for decades: modern tenure lengths are the longest in U.S. history, and decisions about retirement have become increasingly strategic, timed, in many cases, to align with the political preferences of the sitting president.
An 18-year term limit, the argument goes, would normalize the appointment process and reduce the outsized stakes of any single vacancy.
The ROBE Act faces significant headwinds. The Republican-controlled House and Senate make passage essentially impossible in the current Congress. A similar bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025, was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary last year and did not advance further.
Trust in the Supreme Court, however, continues to slide. A poll from NBC News released in March found that only 22 percent of registered voters said they had a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the court, while 38 percent said they had very little or no confidence at all.
A Gallup poll released last October found that 49 percent of Americans trusted the court either a great deal or a fair amount, among the lowest figures in Gallup’s trend, essentially matching the historic low of 47 percent recorded in 2022.
Meanwhile, there is continued speculation about potential retirements. Thomas, 77, and Alito, 76, are the court’s oldest justices. Neither is reported to be planning retirement this year, according to CBS News.
President Trump has said he is prepared to name new justices if openings arise: “It could be two, could be three, could be one. I don’t know — I’m prepared to do it,” he said in an interview with Fox Business Network.
We have been watching the Supreme Court dismantle voting protections, overturn reproductive rights, and expand executive power at a pace that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
The ROBE Act is unlikely to pass in this Congress. But it is not nothing. It is a formal, public argument that the current structure of the court is not working for most Americans, and that the solution is structural reform, not just a different set of justices.
