Connect with us

News

Biden is backing major Supreme Court reforms. Here’s what they would do.

Published

on

Biden is backing major Supreme Court reforms. Here’s what they would do.

Washington — President Biden on Monday unveiled a trio of proposals to reform the Supreme Court, calling on Congress to pass legislation setting term limits for justices and establish binding, enforceable ethics rules for the nation’s highest court.

Mr. Biden’s proposed reforms come after the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, issued a series of landmark decisions in recent years that have upended longstanding rulings on abortion, affirmative action in higher education and federal regulatory power.

Those decisions, as well as scrutiny over ethics practices at the high court, have made it a target of Democrats and liberal advocacy groups, who have argued the Supreme Court has undermined public confidence in itself.

Two of Mr. Biden’s three proposed changes — term limits and a binding code of conduct — would require action from Congress, making it highly unlikely they will become law before the president leaves office in January 2025. His third reform is a constitutional amendment that clarifies that no president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. That proposal is Mr. Biden’s answer to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month finding that former President Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official acts taken while in the White House.

Here’s what to know about Mr. Biden’s plan for Supreme Court reform.

Advertisement

What are the president’s proposed Supreme Court changes?

Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group photo on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a group photo on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images


The first measure put forth by Mr. Biden is an amendment to the Constitution called the No One is Above the Law Amendment, which would state that the Constitution doesn’t grant immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction or sentencing to a former president, according to the White House. 

“I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators,” Mr. Biden wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post about his plan.

The second proposed reform would do away with lifetime appointments for members of the Supreme Court and instead set 18-year term limits. Under Mr. Biden’s plan, the president would appoint a new justice every two years, who would then serve for 18 years. 

Advertisement

“Term limits would help ensure that the court’s membership changes with some regularity,” Mr. Biden wrote. “That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come.”

The president’s third proposal is a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, which would require justices in part to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and step aside from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest.

The Supreme Court implemented ethics rules in November, but it does not include an enforcement mechanism. Mr. Biden called its ethics code “weak and self-enforced.”

Will these be implemented?

It’s highly unlikely Mr. Biden’s proposed changes will be implemented in the coming months. Election Day is just 99 days away and, more importantly, Congress is divided. The president’s plans to impose term limits and a code of conduct would require legislative approval from the House and Senate.

Republicans narrowly control the House, and GOP lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have denounced Democrats’ criticisms of the court, arguing they are part of an effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court following rulings that they dislike. Legislation setting term limits for justices and establishing ethics rules would be unlikely to clear the House, and that’s if Republican leaders allowed a floor vote in the first place.

Advertisement

Additionally, there is a high bar for amending the Constitution. One method for proposing a constitutional amendment requires two-thirds support of both the House and Senate, and another is through a constitutional convention of two-thirds of state legislatures. Ratification requires support from three-fourths of state legislatures.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992.

But progressive groups are working to make the Supreme Court a motivating issue for voters in November. Some initiatives rolled out in recent months are aimed not only at helping Democrats hold onto the White House, but also keep control of the Senate and flip the House.

If Democrats were to gain a trifecta, it could clear the way for Congress to enact legislation reforming the Supreme Court. In the Senate, the party would have to significantly widen its majority, since 60 votes are required for legislation to advance. 

Why is he rolling these out now?

Mr. Biden forecast his reform proposal during remarks in the Oval Office last week, days after announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race and endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. The president said changing the Supreme Court is “critical to our democracy.”

Advertisement

Mr. Biden’s comments — and now his plan — marked a significant shift for the president, who resisted calls to endorse court reforms just a few years ago. During the 2020 election, the president declined to back so-called court packing, or adding seats to the Supreme Court, a proposal pushed by liberal advocacy groups.

Mr. Biden instead created a commission to study proposed changes, and the panel approved and submitted its report to him in December 2021. But the president didn’t publicly address the commission’s findings, even as Congress’ focus on the Supreme Court intensified last year amid concerns about its ethics policies. In his Washington Post op-ed, Mr. Biden thanked the commission for its “insightful analysis, which informed some of these proposals.”

Concerns from Democrats in Congress were sparked by reporting about Justice Clarence Thomas’ ties to GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, who paid for trips that the justice did not report on annual financial disclosure forms.

Thomas said he and Crow have been friends for decades, and the justice didn’t believe he was required to report the travel under prior guidelines for personal hospitality. He vowed last year to comply with new rules and listed additional travel provided by Crow on his latest disclosure forms.

Justice Samuel Alito has also faced backlash from Democrats over an upside-down American flag flown outside his Virginia residence in January 2021 and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag displayed outside his New Jersey vacation house in the summer of 2023.

Advertisement

Both types of flags were carried by rioters who breached the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. Alito has said he was not involved in the displays outside his homes. Instead, the justice told congressional Democrats in May that his wife flew the two flags, and neither of them knew of the meanings ascribed to them in recent years.

Beyond the ethics practices, Democrats have also taken aim at the Supreme Court because of recent decisions from its conservative majority. In June 2022, the court overturned Roe v. Wade, and in June 2023, it rejected affirmative action in higher education.

In its most recent term, it overturned a 40-year-old decision to curtail the regulatory power of federal agencies, dismantled a Trump-era ban on bump stocks and narrowed the scope of a federal obstruction law used to charge scores of Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump.

The Supreme Court also found that former presidents are entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts taken while in Congress, a ruling with significant ramifications for special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump.

Citing the landscape surrounding the court, Mr. Biden wrote that “what is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.”

Advertisement

News

Video: The Rise of Deadly Trucks and S.U.V.s

Published

on

Video: The Rise of Deadly Trucks and S.U.V.s

new video loaded: The Rise of Deadly Trucks and S.U.V.s

A once-steady decline in pedestrian deaths in the United States has reversed, even as other countries have grown safer. Michael Keller, a New York Times investigative reporter, used crash test results, 3-D visibility scans and real-world reconstructions to explore how the boom in taller, heavier trucks and S.U.V.s has changed what happens when a person is struck.

By Michael H. Keller, Danielle Ivory, Irineo Cabreros, Eli Murray, Gabriel Blanco and Joey Sendaydiego

June 22, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court allows a ruling that ends a tool to protect minority voters in 7 states

Published

on

Supreme Court allows a ruling that ends a tool to protect minority voters in 7 states

Demonstrators hold a sign saying “PROTECT MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS” outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in 2025.

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Legal Defense Fund

By declining to take up a lower court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt another blow to the Voting Rights Act.

The court announced Monday that it will not review an Arkansas-based lawsuit, leaving in place a 2025 appeals panel ruling that ends a long-used tool for protecting minority voters from discrimination under the landmark law in seven mainly Midwestern states.

That ruling found that in the states covered by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — private individuals and groups do not have the right to sue to enforce what’s known as Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which generally allows voters with a disability or inability to read or write to get help with voting from a person of their choice.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court’s move comes almost two months after its conservative supermajority issued a major ruling that further weakened the Voting Rights Act, setting off a groundswell in redistricting across the country.

In May, shortly after that undermining of Section 2 protections against racial discrimination in redistricting, the high court decided not to weigh in on what the legal world calls a “private right of action,” sending back to lower courts two cases brought by Black voters in Mississippi and Native American voters in North Dakota.

For decades, enforcement of these sections of the Voting Rights Act has mainly been driven by lawsuits by private individuals and groups.

But after conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a single-paragraph opinion in 2021 questioning a private right of action, Republican officials in multiple states have raised a novel legal argument: Only the U.S. attorney general, they contend, has the right to bring lawsuits under these parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Such an interpretation of the law is likely to lead to a dramatic decline in voting rights lawsuits because of the Justice Department’s limited resources and shifting priorities under different presidential administrations.

Advertisement

The case that the justices decided not to take up was brought by the immigrant advocacy group Arkansas United, which has provided Spanish-language interpreters at polling sites to assist voters with limited English proficiency. The group challenged an Arkansas law that bans a person who is not a poll worker from helping more than six voters cast ballots. In 2022, a federal judge ruled that the state law violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. But after GOP state officials appealed, an 8th Circuit panel found last year that private groups, like Arkansas United, do not have the right to bring this kind of lawsuit.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

Published

on

Video: California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

new video loaded: California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

transcript

transcript

California Governor Declares State of Emergency for L.A. Warehouse Fire

A fire that broke out on Wednesday at a cold storage facility in Los Angeles continued to burn on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom declared an emergency.

We do realize that at times there are large amounts of smoke coming off this building, and that is to be expected. Now, the good news is, all of our air monitoring has shown that there are no additional toxic chemicals or hazards within that smoke other than normal structure fire smoke. That said, no smoke is good smoke. There are smoke advisories and particulate matter advisories out there around the community, spanning for several miles around this incident. We are going to continue to aggressively fight this fire and minimize the impact to the community as much as possible.

Advertisement
A fire that broke out on Wednesday at a cold storage facility in Los Angeles continued to burn on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom declared an emergency.

By Cynthia Silva

June 21, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending