The amendment fell short because Republicans sought to cap the number of seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The House failed Wednesday to advance a joint Republican-backed resolution that would permanently limit the court’s current number of judges to nine.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The final vote on the amendment was mostly along party lines, with 212 votes in favor and 206 votes against.
A simple majority is required to pass most bills in the House, but constitutional amendments require two-thirds support.
Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina was the only Democrat to vote in favor of the amendment, while Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent from California who caucuses with Republicans, voted against the amendment.
The vote came a day after the House of Representatives voted 220-192 to adopt a resolution condemning socialism. Eight Democrats worked with Republicans to advance the bill.
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday scolded Democratic lawmakers who voted against the two bills on social media.
“For a member of Congress sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, condemning socialism and defending the integrity of the Supreme Court should not be a controversial vote,” Johnson wrote in X. “Unfortunately, for Democrats today, that’s the problem.”
Both efforts amount to, in effect, messaging exercises by Republicans, trying to get Democratic lawmakers on the record that the party does not condemn socialism or expanding the Supreme Court.
The maneuver comes less than two months before crucial midterm elections in November that will determine which party controls Congress.
Some Democratic lawmakers are pushing for more justices to be added to the country’s overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court. The process is known as “coat packing” among opponents and is controversial.
But support for the idea gained momentum after President Donald Trump appointed three justices to the court during his first term. Conservative-led courts have since handed him a series of legal victories.
In April 2021, four Democratic members of the U.S. Congress introduced a bill to create a 13-judge Supreme Court.
They argued that this would “restore balance to the nation’s highest court after four years of norm-breaking actions by Republicans.”
The U.S. Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, but does not limit or specify its size, leaving the matter entirely to the nation’s legislators.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established six judges: a chief justice and five judges. During the next century, the size of the court changed several times. The current number of seats was established in 1869 and has been the subject of debate ever since.
The most famous attempt to change the composition of the court was under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After winning the 1936 election, Roosevelt proposed expanding the court to include one additional justice for each justice over 70, up to a maximum of six additional judges.
Since then, advocacy groups including the Brennan Center for Justice have proposed changes to the court’s structure, including term limits and ethics rules, while some Democrats have unsuccessfully called for a Roosevelt-style expansion.
The issue resurfaced during the midterm election season. In an interview with NBC News last month, Democratic Sen. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina embraced the idea.
“I think we’re in a position right now that requires significant action by Congress. We should expand,” Clyburn said.
“Thirteen is a pretty good number. About a dozen bakers would be a good number to put on the court. I want to see people on the court who abide by the constitution of this great country.”
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, a 2024 Democratic presidential candidate, also suggested that Democrats should have a “real conversation” about “expanding the court to 13 jurors.”
But Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, remain adamantly opposed.
“To protect our constitutional liberties and the way of life for generations to come, we must protect the independence of the federal judiciary,” Grassley said in a June statement, quoting Harris.
