The U.S. Supreme Court on April 9, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
U.S. House Republicans on Thursday condemned expanding the Supreme Court, an idea some Democrats support as a way to dilute the court’s conservative majority after years of decisions that have angered liberals.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers clashed at a hearing over the Supreme Court’s future after Louisiana v. Callais, a landmark decision that gutted federal voting rights law.
The verdict cleared the way for the Republican-controlled Southern states to dissolve congressional districts held by black Democrats before the November midterm elections.
The Democrats have responded Renewal of calls for changing the Supreme Court, including increasing the number of justices beyond the current nine serving justices. Thursday’s hearing offered a preview of how Republicans might attack those plans if Democrats retake the House in November and try to push court reform through the chamber.
“Will the United States Congress embrace the idea that we should be more democratic in our third branch or that our third branch should remain more independent, less, if not entirely, outside the will of the people,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet.
“Court Packing”
The Subcommittee hearingofficially titled “Judicial Execution: A Threat to the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” focused on Republicans’ warnings that adding justices would lead to a slippery slope with no clear end. Democrats countered that the court was endangering democracy.
It’s not clear whether a bill to expand the court would pass in a Democratic-controlled House. There is no clear consensus among Democrats about exactly what changes should be made, and other ideas include term limits for judges, a mandatory code of ethics for the court or limiting the types of cases the court can take.
Because of the Senate filibuster and President Donald Trump’s veto, any revision would be challenging to become law in the near future.
But Democrats are broadly irate at the Supreme Court and support for some form of action is growing.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris last week called for discussion of Supreme Court reform, including expanding the court. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat who is slated to become speaker if his party takes back the House, has said “something” needs to be done in the next Congress.
“Our nation is now in Jim Crow 2.0,” Rep. Henry “Hank” Johnson, a Georgia Democrat and ranking member of the subcommittee, said at the hearing.
The verdict sparked outrage
In Callais the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that Louisiana had committed unconstitutional racism when it drew a second majority-black congressional district.
The opinion severely limits the operate of race in redistricting and allows states to apportion districts in which most residents are from a racial minority group based on partisan politics. Previously, the Voting Rights Act protected these districts.
Democrats were also outraged by other key decisions.
The Citizens United case in 2010 dramatically expanded the role of corporate money in politics. Dobbs ended federal abortion rights in 2022. And in 2024, the case Trump v. United States granted the president broad immunity from prosecution for actions committed while in office.
“We can either sit back while our Supreme Court continues to operate without restrictions or checks, or we can do something about it,” Johnson said.
Republicans also say they lost
Republicans and witnesses called by GOP lawmakers emphasized that the Supreme Court has also ruled against conservatives in a number of high-profile cases.
For example, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote to uphold the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health law. The Supreme Court also guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage in 2015 and strengthened employment protections for gay and transgender workers in 2019.
Recently, the Supreme Court effectively blocked Trump’s National Guard deployments to Democratic cities. And in February the judges dejected Trump’s global tariffs – his signature trade policy.
“We had a terrible tariff decision. They cost our country a fortune,” Trump said Thursday.
Gene Schaerr, a lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court, suggested that if Democrats added justices, Republicans would almost certainly respond.
“Soon, the White House Ballroom will be the only venue in Washington, D.C., that will be large enough to accommodate the Supreme Court conferences, its private conferences,” Schaerr told the subcommittee.
Nomination for Merrick Garland
But Republicans have already joined the trial, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Senate Republicans, led by then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, blocked consideration of Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. After Trump won the 2016 election, the Senate quickly confirmed his nominee, Neil Gorsuch, in early 2017.
Senate Republicans then quickly confirmed Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September 2020 — although the vacancy occurred much closer to the election than in 2016. Those decisions helped turn a 5-4 court into a 6-3 conservative majority at the end of the Obama era.
“So right there we have two seats that were officially stolen by Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate,” Raskin said.
On Thursday, Republicans called Democratic attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court hazardous. The court relies on respect, Missouri Attorney General Louis Capozzi said, with the norm of an independent judiciary that has evolved over time.
“Today we expect government officials to follow the Supreme Court’s orders,” said Capozzi, who previously clerked for Gorsuch. “But that could change if politicians interfere with the independence of the Supreme Court.”
