When media commentators and ordinary people (including me) discuss the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), they regard it as some kind of politicial mastodon. That is, something perpetual and unchanging, an outmoded and flawed third leg of the federal government.
Consequently, discussion about changing the number of justices, length of terms, or accountability to professional norms tend to go back no further than the Depression era when President Roosevelt attempted to expand the court to circumvent their opposition to his New Deal policies. Those events occurred before the lifetimes of most current Americans. Since then, Congress has made no serious attempt to change the composition or responsibilities of the SCOTUS.
Until now. President Trump’s packing of the Court with conservative extremist justices provoked renewed interest in changing SCOTUS composition a top priority, especially if a Democratic blue wave changes the political makeup of Congress. Though my own musings about SCOTUS, particularly the number of justices, echo such discussion, they do so strictly from a pragmatic point of view as if such change resembled restoring an old car meant replacing only its spark plugs and tires. My observations and criticism ignored SCOTUS’s history, scope, and public function.
With the congressional elections less than a week away, here are several points to consider when determining which candidates, (including judges) regard SCOTUS as a maladaptive, monolithic governmental atavism and which believe it can and should be improved:
SCOTUS Size and Scope
As generally known, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the three-tiered federal judicial system which also includes the circuit and the appellate courts. Divided into twelve jurisdictions, one glance at the map reveals the obvious: their sizes are proportionately inequitable. How in any way can the caseload from the First Circuit Court (Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticutt) match that of the Ninth Circuit (California, the Rocky Mountain states, Alaska and Hawaii)?
Certainly, the annual number of cases from California alone matches or exceeds those going through the system in the eastern United States, six of which include only three states with two more circuites containing just four. Though those eastern circuits contain many of the business enterprises likely to engage in cases involving federal jurisdiction, this numerical imbalance justifies expanding the number of SCOTUS justices to manage the caseload.
SCOTUS’ Purpose
The map also hints at the history that fostered this caseload inequality. When the founders set up the circuit court system, the judges elected or appointed to operate the system were expected to hold hearings in the states within each district every other month. Hence, the name circuit court with judges literally becoming circuit-riders to dispense justice.
As the country expanded westward, the circuit court’s original purpose proved untenable. Via the Judicial Act of 1891, Congress dropped the circuit court judges’ responsibility to hear cases in person. By 1912. their function changed completely to appeals court judges, deciding the procedural integrity orpotential legal errors in cases decided in the District courts.
SCOTUS Recent History
Despite the efficacy of this new, three-tier system, the caseload for supreme court justices again proved burdensome. The 20th century witnessed ongoing change in the number and size of the regional circuits until they reached twelve in 1980, with a 13th added to cover specifically the Washington D.C. region. Since then, a number of changes have been proposed, including an expansion in the number of justices, some as high as the upper twenties. Congressional politics, however, and the country’s cultural divide have prevented changes in the court’s composition or accountability.
SCOTUS: Current Prognosis
It seems as though SCOTUS is at something of an impasse so far as meaningful change is concerned. The very fear Thomas Jefferson expressed about the Supreme Court becoming too powerful has reached fruition under the Trump administration. Many regard its current function as little more than a judical backstop for the president’s more questionable policies and uses of office. Nonetheless, the pace of change sketched out above has occurred even if the pace of that change happens at a glacial level.
All of which seems in keeping for an institution tasked with making the government adhere to the principles and values on which it was built. Surely, the highest court in the land whose judgments admit no further appeal should decide and pronounce with all deliberate speed. Any changes to that august body must be introduced, regarded, and acted upon with the same exalted consideration and concern as befits the stature of the institution. The pace of the institution’s change may resemble a mastodon’s, but it will be firm. powerful, and far-reaching.
Keep that thought in mind at the polls when choosing your candidates for elective office. The outcome for 2026 promises tremendous consequences for our country and SCOTUS as well. Choose wisely.
All that said, what do you think? Let me know in the Comments section.
