Supreme Court Reform: Accountability at the Highest Level

The Highest Court at a Crossroads: The U.S. Supreme Court stands as the guardian of our Constitution. It’s meant to be independent – free to make decisions without political pressure – and it wields immense power over Americans’ rights and laws. But with that great power comes a need for public trust and accountability. Today, many Americans are questioning whether the Court has enough checks on its power. In fact, public confidence in the Supreme Court is hovering near historic lows, with fewer than half of Americans viewing the Court favorably. From lifetime appointments that can span decades to recent ethics concerns, it’s clear why people across the political spectrum are concerned. How can we preserve the Court’s independence while making sure it remains accountable to the rule of law and the people? The Checks & Rights Party believes there are smart, non-partisan reforms to do exactly that.

Balancing Judicial Independence with Accountability

Our nation’s founders designed a system of checks and balances so that no branch of government can dominate the others. The judiciary was given lifetime appointments to protect judges from political retaliation, ensuring judicial independence. That independence remains crucial – judges should decide cases based on the Constitution and law, not popular opinion or fear of losing their job. But independence does not mean the Supreme Court should be untouchable or above scrutiny. Like the other branches, the Court works best when it has meaningful oversight and accountability to the public it serves.

Today, that balance feels off. Lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, a tradition since 1789, is increasingly seen as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it guards against outside influence; on the other, it means justices can serve for 30 or even 40+ years, long after the presidents and Senates that appointed them are gone. Over such lengthy terms, the Court’s makeup can become out of step with the nation, and opportunities to adjust course are rare and random. For example, some justices strategically time their retirement under certain presidents, which undermines faith in the Court’s impartiality. When vacancies do arise, they often come in sudden, unpredictable bursts – raising the stakes of each appointment to explosive levels. This has contributed to bitter confirmation battles and a public perception of the Court as a political prize. As one analysis noted, the United States’ unusually long Supreme Court terms don’t actually produce greater judicial independence, but they do carry “diminishing returns and mounting costs” in the modern era.

Ethics are the other side of accountability. Recent revelations have shown that some justices accepted luxury trips and gifts from wealthy individuals without disclosing them, and even heard cases involving those benefactors. Unlike every other federal judge, Supreme Court justices (until very recently) had no formal code of conduct binding them. They historically followed an honor system, voluntarily abiding by ethics guidelines – but there was no independent body to enforce rules on recusal, gifts, or conflicts of interest. After public pressure, the justices finally announced a written ethics code in 2023, but notably it has no clear enforcement mechanism. As one U.S. senator observed, “the honor system has not worked” at the Court – a code means little “if there’s no mechanism for enforcing” it. In a government of laws, no one – not even a Supreme Court justice – should be above basic ethical standards. The rule of law and public trust demand that even the highest judges are held accountable when necessary.

The Case for Reform: Why Change is Needed

The growing calls to reform the Supreme Court are not about partisan politics or attacking the judiciary – they are about strengthening this vital institution for the long run. Americans across the political divide support common-sense changes. Polls show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults favor term limits or a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices. (In a 2022 survey, 67% supported ending life tenure, including large majorities of Democrats and Republicans.) This broad agreement signals that the issue isn’t left or right – it’s about preserving core democratic principles. We can protect the Court’s independence and ensure accountability at the same time.

It’s also helpful to remember that the United States is an outlier in how it handles high court appointments. Our Supreme Court’s life tenure is virtually unique among democracies. Many other free nations set fixed terms or retirement ages for their top judges – for example, Britain’s judges retire at 70, and countries like Canada, Australia, and Germany also avoid lifetime appointments – yet their judiciaries remain just as independent and respected. Studies have found no evidence that having reasonable term limits on judges harms judicial independence. In other words, we gain no special benefit from lifetime tenure in terms of fairness or freedom from influence. What we do get are increasingly lengthy tenures that can make the Court “imbalanced and stale,” as one scholar put it. Regular turnover, by contrast, can refresh the Court’s perspective and legitimacy without undermining its integrity.

Finally, the Supreme Court’s credibility relies on the public’s belief that justices follow the same principles of accountability we expect of other officials. The Court has no army or purse; its authority rests on trust and perceived legitimacy. If the public sees a Court where justices have unchecked power, serve for life no matter their health or conduct, and police their own ethics in darkness, that trust erodes. On the other hand, a Court that welcomes oversight and periodic renewal can strengthen its standing. The goal is a Court that is independent enough to uphold the law against pressure, yet accountable enough to uphold the law’s spirit – showing that no one is above the rules, not even those who interpret them.

Proposed Reforms: Strengthening the Court’s Integrity

The Checks & Rights Party is advancing a package of reforms to realign the Supreme Court with longstanding constitutional values like checks and balances, the rule of law, and democratic accountability. These proposals are rooted in principles, not partisanship. They aim to preserve what works about our highest court – its independence and authority – while adding safeguards to restore public trust. Here are the key reforms we support:

• 18-Year Staggered Terms for Justices: Limit future Supreme Court justices to a single 18-year term, with terms staggered so that a vacancy opens every two years. (With nine justices, an 18-year term each means a new appointment every two years.) This regular schedule would lower the temperature of confirmation battles and ensure no single president can tip the Court’s balance all at once. Every president would likely appoint two justices per four-year term, giving all elected leaders, from either party, a fair chance to influence the Court’s makeup over time. Crucially, 18 years is still a long tenure – long enough to maintain judicial independence. But it also guarantees steady renewal. Rather than having some justices serve for 30+ years while others serve much less, this reform brings predictability and fairness. As the Brennan Center for Justice observes, “Staggered 18-year terms would bring regular turnover to the bench. The result would be a Court that better reflects prevailing public values.” In short, term limits would refresh the Court’s membership in a neutral, clockwork manner – preserving stability while preventing stagnation.

• Independent Ethics and Recusal Enforcement: Establish a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, enforced by an independent body. Just as lower court judges are subject to ethical rules and oversight panels, the highest court should not be entirely self-policing. We propose an independent commission – for example, a panel of respected retired judges or ethics experts – to receive and investigate complaints about a justice’s conduct, financial disclosures, or potential conflicts of interest. This body could make recommendations for recusal (when justices must step aside from a case) or other remedies if a justice violates ethics rules. The goal is not to interfere with judicial decisions, but to ensure basic standards are met. No justice should be deciding cases where they have a glaring conflict or personal stake, and an independent review can uphold that principle. By having an enforcement mechanism, the Supreme Court would demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law internally. Imagine a future where reports of misconduct are addressed by a fair process, rather than shrugged off – the public’s confidence in the Court’s integrity would greatly improve. As it stands, even after adopting an ethics code, the Court’s lack of outside enforcement is “the elephant in the room”. It’s time to bring in some daylight and accountability at the highest level.

• Age and Tenure Limits for New Appointees: Implement an upper age limit for starting a new term on the Supreme Court (for example, no justice should begin a term after reaching the full federal retirement age, currently 67). This reform, which the Checks & Rights Party supports for high offices across government, ensures a healthy rotation of leadership and prevents individuals from holding power well into advanced age. In practice, an age limit would mean presidents appoint somewhat younger justices on average, knowing that anyone over the cutoff could not be confirmed for a full term. It would encourage a mix of generations on the bench and avoid extremely lengthy tenures by default. Notably, many states and other countries already have judicial retirement ages (often around 70) to prompt orderly turnover. We can do similarly while still benefiting from each justice’s many years of experience. An age/tenure limit is about foresight – it helps the Court and other branches renew themselves with fresh minds and diverse life experiences, rather than concentrating power in a small group of super-elderly figures. It also spares the nation scenarios where a justice’s declining health becomes a political crisis. Overall, this measure ties into a broader principle: government works best when it has a cycle of renewal and the wisdom of multiple generations, not lifetime lock-ins.

Grounded in Core American Principles, Not Partisan Interests

All these proposals share a common purpose: to strengthen the Supreme Court’s fairness, integrity, and alignment with constitutional values. None of these reforms is about pushing a liberal or conservative agenda through the Court. In fact, they would apply evenly regardless of which party is in power. Regular term limits and scheduled appointments would prevent the manipulation of court seats by either side. Ethical oversight would apply to all justices, whether appointed by Democrats or Republicans. And an age limit is a neutral rule that respects the natural point of retirement for any public servant.

Far from radical, these ideas echo the ideals of the Constitution. The framers may have given justices life tenure to protect them from political whims, but they also expected Congress and the American people to serve as a check if any branch became overmighty. Checks and balances are the cornerstone of our system, and that extends to the judiciary as well. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, the judiciary must rely on its reputation and adherence to the law, since it has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” In other words, the courts cannot maintain authority without the public’s respect. By enacting sensible reforms like those above, we reinforce the notion that the Supreme Court is accountable under the same Constitution that it interprets. We guard against the concentration of too much power for too long in any one set of hands – a principle fundamental to American democracy.

It’s also worth noting that these reforms have been gaining support from legal experts and everyday citizens alike. Retired judges, scholars, and bipartisan groups have spoken out in favor of term limits for the Court as a way to depoliticize and stabilize it. And as mentioned, large majorities of Americans – usually around 70% – favor term limits or mandatory retirement for Supreme Court justices. Similarly, there are widespread calls (from across the political spectrum) for a binding Supreme Court ethics code after the recent controversies. This isn’t a fringe idea; it’s a mainstream desire to uphold the rule of law fairly. When the public sees both left and right agreeing that no official should have a permanent tenure or be above ethical scrutiny, it reflects a deep civic consensus: our institutions must be worthy of the people’s trust. Reforming the Court is ultimately about preserving trust in one of America’s most important institutions.

A Stronger Supreme Court for the Future

The Supreme Court is often called the “guardian of the Constitution.” We the people have a responsibility to ensure that guardian remains strong, fair, and true to the principles of justice. The reforms proposed by the Checks & Rights Party – 18-year staggered terms, independent ethics enforcement, and age/tenure limits – are designed to safeguard the Court’s integrity without compromising its independence. By instituting regular turnover, we prevent extreme swings and reduce political gamesmanship in appointments. By enforcing ethics, we reassure the public that justices are held to the highest standards of conduct. By setting reasonable limits on tenure, we inject fresh energy and ideas into the system over time. All of these changes seek to modernize the Court in line with the core values of our Constitution: checks and balances, accountability, and the notion that government derives its legitimacy from the people’s trust.

None of this is about weakening the Supreme Court. On the contrary, it’s about strengthening the Court for generations to come. An accountable Court will be more respected and ultimately more effective as the final arbiter of the law. As citizens, we shouldn’t have to choose between an independent judiciary and a responsible one. We can – and must – have both. Through measured, thoughtful reform, the Supreme Court can continue to be an impartial umpire in our democracy while also demonstrating that it answers to the Constitution and the American people.

The path forward is hopeful and firmly non-partisan. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a conservative, a progressive, or anywhere in between – all Americans benefit from a Supreme Court that is fair, ethical, and periodically renewed. By preserving judicial independence and instituting public accountability, we honor the vision of the founders and the expectations of citizens today. The Checks & Rights Party invites everyone to join this conversation about Supreme Court reform. Together, we can ensure that our highest court remains a place of justice – accountable at the highest level – and continues to uphold the rule of law in which we all share.