Supreme Court Reform: The Only Branch with No Term Limits, No Ethics Code, and No Accountability

Why Does the Supreme Court Need Reform?

The Supreme Court is the most powerful unelected body in American government — and the only one with no term limits, no binding ethics code, and no meaningful accountability mechanism. Public trust in the court is at a historic low. The system is broken not because of any single justice, but because of structural failures that were never addressed.

Lifetime appointments create randomness, not stability. Under the current system, the composition of the Supreme Court depends not on elections or merit but on when justices happen to die or retire. A president who serves one term might appoint three justices; another might appoint none. Jimmy Carter served a full term and appointed zero Supreme Court justices. Donald Trump served one term and appointed three, reshaping the court for a generation. This is not a system designed to reflect the will of the people — it is a lottery that rewards political luck.

There is no ethics code. Every other federal judge in the country is bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Every member of Congress is subject to ethics rules enforced by committee. Every executive branch official is governed by ethics regulations. Supreme Court justices are subject to none of these. They decide for themselves whether to recuse from cases. They decide for themselves whether to disclose gifts. They decide for themselves whether their spouse's political activities create a conflict of interest. The result is predictable: they don't recuse, they don't disclose, and they don't acknowledge conflicts.

The growing power of judicial review has outpaced accountability. The Supreme Court now routinely strikes down laws passed by democratically elected majorities, overturns decades of precedent with narrow 5-4 or 6-3 decisions, and issues rulings that reshape American life in ways that no other institution can reverse. This power was always part of the design — but the Founders assumed shorter tenures and a less politicized appointment process. Average tenure has grown from roughly 15 years in the early republic to over 27 years today. The court was not designed to function with justices serving for three decades.

Public trust is collapsing. Gallup's confidence measure for the Supreme Court hit an all-time low in 2022 at 25% — down from 50% a decade earlier. This is not a partisan phenomenon; trust has fallen among independents and members of both parties. When the public loses faith in the legitimacy of the judiciary, the rule of law itself is at risk. For the full context on government accountability, see the government reform policy.

What Ethics Problems Have Justices Had?

The absence of a binding ethics code has produced exactly the outcome you would expect: repeated, documented ethics violations with zero consequences. Here are the most significant cases.

Clarence Thomas accepted over $4 million in undisclosed gifts from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow over two decades, according to ProPublica reporting. These gifts included luxury vacations on private jets and superyachts, a $19,000 Bible that once belonged to Frederick Douglass, private school tuition for Thomas's grandnephew, and the purchase of Thomas's mother's home (in which she continued to live rent-free). Thomas did not disclose any of these gifts on his annual financial disclosure forms, as required by federal law. He also did not recuse himself from cases in which Crow or his business interests had a stake. No enforcement action has been taken.

Samuel Alito flew an inverted American flag — a symbol associated with the "Stop the Steal" movement — outside his home in January 2021, days after the Capitol insurrection. He later flew an "Appeal to Heaven" flag, another symbol used by January 6th participants, at his vacation home. Alito attributed the flags to his wife and refused calls to recuse from January 6th-related cases. He also failed to disclose a luxury fishing trip to Alaska with Republican megadonor Paul Singer, whose hedge fund had business before the court. Alito did not recuse from a case involving Singer's firm.

Antonin Scalia went on a hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney while the court was considering a case involving Cheney's energy task force. Scalia refused to recuse, arguing that the trip did not affect his judgment. The appearance of impropriety was undeniable, but because there is no ethics enforcement mechanism for Supreme Court justices, no action was taken.

Spouse conflicts of interest have become a recurring problem. Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, was actively involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including direct communication with Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Justice Thomas was the sole dissent in a ruling that required the release of White House documents to the January 6th Committee — documents that included his wife's communications. Under any other ethics regime in the federal government, this would require recusal. On the Supreme Court, it required nothing. For broader context on government accountability, see the government corruption and reform page.

How Does the Common Good SCOTUS Reform Plan Work?

The Common Good plan is comprehensive structural reform — not a reaction to any single decision or justice. It addresses the three core failures of the current system: unaccountable tenure, absent ethics, and a court size frozen since 1869.

The plan is built on six core provisions:

• 18-Year Staggered Terms: Each justice serves a single 18-year term. Terms are staggered so one seat opens every two years, guaranteeing every president appoints exactly two justices per term. After their term, justices assume senior status on lower federal courts — maintaining lifetime judicial employment while rotating off the Supreme Court.
• Binding Ethics Code with Enforcement: A mandatory code of conduct for Supreme Court justices — the same standard that applies to every other federal judge. Includes gift disclosure, mandatory recusal rules, a ban on accepting gifts from parties with business before the court, and an independent enforcement body with investigative authority.
• Expand to 18 Seats (Phased In): Expand the court from 9 to 18 justices over time — not overnight. The expansion is phased in as new appointments are made under the staggered term system. No single president fills all new seats. The number 18 corresponds to the 18-year term cycle: one seat per every two years.
• Supermajority to Overturn Precedent: Overturning established Supreme Court precedent requires a two-thirds supermajority of sitting justices — not a bare 5-4 or 6-3 majority. This ensures that settled law is only reversed when there is broad judicial consensus, not a narrow partisan shift.
• Strengthened Recusal Requirements: Mandatory recusal when a justice or their spouse has a financial interest, personal relationship, or political involvement related to a case. Recusal decisions are reviewed by the other justices, not left to the conflicted justice alone.
• Financial Transparency: All gifts, travel, outside income, and financial interests above $500 must be disclosed publicly. Real-time financial disclosure — not annual reports filed months later. Failure to disclose is subject to investigation and sanctions by the independent ethics body.

For the complete judicial reform framework with legal analysis, see the full government reform issue page.

How Do Other Countries Handle Their Highest Courts?

The United States is an extreme outlier. No other major democracy gives its highest court justices lifetime appointments with no ethics code, no term limits, and no mandatory retirement age. Every peer nation has adopted structural safeguards that the US has not.

The pattern is clear. Every major democracy has adopted at least one structural check on its highest court: term limits, mandatory retirement ages, binding ethics codes, or independent appointment commissions. The United States has none of these. The American system of lifetime appointments with no ethics code and no mandatory retirement is not a model that other democracies have chosen to follow — because it doesn't work.

Germany's Federal Constitutional Court is widely regarded as the most effective and trusted high court in the democratic world. Its 12-year terms, split appointment process (half by each chamber of parliament), and mandatory retirement at 68 produce a court that is both independent and accountable. The Common Good plan draws on the German model, adapted for the American system.

Would Court Expansion Be Court Packing?

"Court packing" is the term used to describe expanding the court purely to shift its ideological balance. The Common Good plan is structural reform — not a partisan response to any single decision. The distinction matters, and the historical context makes it clear.

The court has been resized six times. The original Supreme Court had 6 justices. Congress changed the number to 5 (1801), then 7 (1807), then 9 (1837), then 10 (1863), then back to 7 (1866), and finally to 9 (1869), where it has remained. The current number is not sacred or constitutional — it is a 155-year-old statutory choice that Congress can change at any time. The claim that "9 justices" is a foundational principle is contradicted by the fact that the Founders started with 6.

FDR's 1937 plan was court packing. Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the court from 9 to 15 justices — all appointed by him, immediately — for the explicit purpose of overcoming a hostile court that was striking down New Deal legislation. It was a power grab, and Congress rejected it. The Common Good plan is fundamentally different: the expansion to 18 is phased in over years, not implemented overnight; it is paired with 18-year term limits that create a structural rationale for the number; and no single president fills all new seats. The number 18 is not arbitrary — it is the mathematical requirement for a system where one seat opens every two years.

The difference between expansion and packing is the difference between structural reform and partisan manipulation. Expansion paired with term limits, phased implementation, and an ethics code is a systemic improvement. Expansion without those guardrails — done overnight by one party to shift the balance — is packing. The Common Good plan includes every guardrail.

It is also worth noting that what happened between 2016 and 2020 was itself a form of court manipulation. The Senate refused to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland in 2016 (arguing it was an election year) and then confirmed Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 (during an election in which voting had already begun). The result was a 6-3 supermajority that does not reflect the popular will — Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. Structural reform is the appropriate response to structural manipulation. See the voting rights policy for broader context on democratic reform.

What Are the Biggest Myths About SCOTUS Reform?

Opposition to court reform relies on a set of arguments that sound principled but are historically inaccurate. Here are the four most common myths — and what the record actually shows.

Supreme Court Reform: Frequently Asked Questions

Click any question to expand the answer.

Have a question not answered here? Read the full government reform issue page or visit our site-wide FAQ.