It addresses a novel court-packing proposal advanced by Andy Craig.
Today, the UnPopulist published my piece titled “Court Packing is a Dangerous Gambit Best Avoided.” It weighs in on Andy Craig’s earlier article, which proposes an unconventional plan that blends court-packing with a constitutional amendment that would impose term limits on Supreme Court justices. While Craig’s scheme is more inventive and polished than traditional court-packing defenses, I contend that it remains a remedy more hazardous than the illness it aims to treat.
Here is a brief preview of the rest:
Court-packing has again surged to the forefront of political contention, with many on the left backing it as a response to what they see as deeply flawed and illegitimate decisions by the Supreme Court. In a recent piece for The UnPopulist, Andy Craig offers hesitant support for court-packing, but adds a twist he believes will reduce the danger: pairing court-packing with a constitutional amendment that would impose term limits on Supreme Court justices, a move that, if enacted, would reverse the packing. The proposed term-limit framework would grant each president two appointments per term, potentially yielding greater ideological balance on the bench.
Craig’s proposal is clever and rises above more conventional defenses of court-packing. Yet I remain unconvinced. His argument overstates the negatives of the current Court majority and underappreciates their positive contributions, including their role in resisting the early stages of authoritarian tendencies—the core concern he foregrounds. He also overestimates the inevitability of future court-packing and the practicality of his compromise. Finally, there are compelling alternative remedies for many of the problems that Craig rightly identifies.
I have previously criticized court-packing in a Lawfare article published last month, where I explained, among other points, why the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais does not justify expanding the court. In another recent piece, I evaluated rationales for increasing the size of the Supreme Court that do not involve packing.
