A Maryland Democrat has proposed a long-shot bill to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices, the latest reform effort capitalizing on the high court’s historic unpopularity across the political spectrum.
The proposal for 18-year term limits from Representative Johnny Olszewski requires a constitutional amendment and has virtually no chance of becoming law. But it would force Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts — all of whom have served more than two decades — into retirement.
What the ROBE Act Would Do
The constitutional amendment, called the Reform of Bench Eligibility Act, would end Supreme Court lifetime appointments, apply to current justices, and include provisions for a “fair and orderly transition” to the new system.
“Faith in the Court depends on its legitimacy as a fair and independent institution,” Olszewski said. “Justices should not be hobnobbing at White House dinners and flying on the private jets of friends who have business before the Court. By establishing term limits, we can reduce the political gamesmanship surrounding appointments, restore balance to the process, and strengthen the integrity of the Court.”
As a proposed constitutional amendment, the ROBE Act would require approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-quarters of the states. It is unlikely to move forward given Republican control of Congress.
Why Trust Is at Historic Lows
The proposal comes as trust in the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, remains at historic lows.
A 2025 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that two-thirds of Republicans, 85% of Democrats, and 76% of independents supported term limits for justices. An NBC News poll in March found that only 22% of registered voters had a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence in the court. A Gallup poll last October found that 49% of Americans trust the court — among the lowest in Gallup’s trend.
Analysts link the decline to high-profile rulings on abortion, voting rights, and presidential power, as well as ethics controversies involving justices’ finances and political ties.
Which Justices Would Be Affected?
Justice Thomas is the longest-serving member of the current court, appointed in 1991 and serving more than 34 years. Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, both appointed by George W. Bush, have each served more than two decades. Together, they are the only justices on the current court who have served longer than 18 years.
Speculation has periodically emerged about retirements by Thomas and Alito, who at 77 and 76 are the court’s oldest members. However, neither justice plans to retire this year, according to CBS News. President Donald Trump said last month he is “prepared” to nominate a new justice if a seat opens.
The Khanna Contrast
A separate bill introduced last year by Democratic Representative Ro Khanna proposed staggered 18-year terms for future justices but explicitly exempted sitting justices, allowing them to retain lifetime tenure. That exemption marks a key difference from the ROBE Act, which would apply term limits retroactively.
The Bottom Line
A Maryland Democrat has proposed a constitutional amendment imposing 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices, targeting Alito, Thomas, and Roberts. The ROBE Act has virtually no chance of passing but reflects growing public support for reform. Trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows, with majorities across parties supporting term limits. The proposal requires approval from two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of states.
My Opinion
The Supreme Court was designed to be insulated from politics. Lifetime appointments were meant to protect justices from pressure, not to let them serve for four decades. The founders could not have imagined justices serving into their late 70s and 80s, or a court where a single appointment could shape American life for a generation.
The ROBE Act is not going to pass. It requires a constitutional amendment, and Republicans control Congress. But that is not the point. The point is that the conversation has shifted. Two-thirds of Republicans support term limits. So do 85% of Democrats. When 67% of the president’s own party thinks justices should not serve for life, something has changed. The public has lost faith in the court, and the court has earned that loss.
The ethics controversies have made it worse. Justices accepting luxury gifts from billionaires with business before the court. Justices flying on private jets. Justices hobnobbing at White House dinners. Those are not minor issues. They are a reminder that lifetime appointments without accountability create an environment where the rules do not apply.
The ROBE Act will not fix this, but it forces a debate that the country needs to have, which is that the Supreme Court is not a monarchy. It is a co-equal branch of government and like every other branch, it should answer to the people it serves.
