Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has introduced a sweeping bill designed to reform the Supreme Court and restore public trust in the institution. The legislation proposes a significant expansion of the court, increasing the number of justices from nine to 15 over a 12-year period. This staggered approach aims to prevent any single political party from gaining an overwhelming majority on the court.
Wyden, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, emphasizes that the bill’s primary objective is to rebuild public confidence in the judiciary. One of the key provisions requires a two-thirds majority in the Supreme Court and circuit courts to overturn Congressional laws, aiming to curb the recent trend of the court overturning laws with narrow majorities. Additionally, the bill mandates automatic Senate votes on Supreme Court nominees if their nominations remain pending in committee for over 180 days.
Wyden’s proposal extends beyond the Supreme Court, seeking to expand federal judicial circuits from 13 to 15 and appoint over 100 new district court judges and 60 appellate-level judges. It also introduces strict financial disclosure requirements for justices, including annual IRS audits and public release of their tax filings.
While ambitious in its scope, the bill faces significant hurdles, as Republicans generally oppose efforts to overhaul the court. Other Democratic proposals for Supreme Court reform have also encountered resistance, indicating a challenging path ahead for Wyden’s legislation.
This proposal comes amidst heightened scrutiny and controversy surrounding the Supreme Court. In July, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) announced her intention to file impeachment articles against at least one Supreme Court justice. This followed the court’s decision to grant former President Donald Trump partial immunity from felony charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Furthermore, in September, a U.S. District Judge temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s latest student debt relief plan after a lawsuit filed by seven Republican-led states. This ruling has further fueled the ongoing debate over the judiciary’s role in shaping national policy.
Adding to the debate is the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old principle that required judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes. This significant change allows judges to decide on laws considered ambiguous, further intensifying the debate over judicial power.
