Ron Wyden's Supreme Court Reform Proposal: Expansion and Accountability Measures

This reform initiative comes in response to a significant decline in public trust in the Supreme Court, exacerbated by controversial rulings on issues like abortion and presidential immunity, as well as ethical scandals involving justices such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Wyden’s bill proposes a staggered approach to expanding the Court, allowing future presidents to appoint one justice in their first and third years in office over a 12-year period. Additionally, it includes provisions for automatic Senate votes on stalled nominations, financial audits of justices, and increased transparency regarding recusal motions. The legislation faces considerable opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers, making its passage uncertain amid the current political climate.

Key Provisions of the Proposal

• Expansion of the Supreme Court: The bill would increase the number of justices from nine to 15 over a span of 12 years.
• Supermajority Requirement: A two-thirds majority would be necessary for the Supreme Court and circuit courts to overturn Congressional laws.
• Financial Transparency: Justices would be subject to annual IRS audits and required to publicly disclose their tax filings.
• Judicial Circuit Expansion: The number of federal circuit courts would grow from 13 to 15, adding over 100 district judges and more than 60 appellate judges.
• Nominations Process Reform: Automatic Senate votes would be mandated for Supreme Court nominees whose nominations are delayed beyond 180 days in committee.

Context and Implications

Wyden’s proposal is positioned as a response to a perceived crisis within the Supreme Court, with advocates arguing that it would restore public confidence in the judiciary. The bill’s introduction follows a series of contentious rulings that have drawn widespread criticism, particularly from progressive lawmakers and activists. With public opinion of the Court at a low, these reforms aim to address not only the structure of the Court but also the ethical standards governing its justices. However, the political landscape suggests that significant resistance remains, particularly from Republican leaders who view such reforms as an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary.