Kamala Harris Backs a 13-Justice Supreme Court, Opening a High-Stakes Fight Over Judicial Power

The former vice president’s proposal would add four seats to the nation’s highest court, but changing its ideological balance would require Democratic control of Congress, the White House, and the Senate confirmation process.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has placed Supreme Court expansion near the center of the Democratic debate over judicial reform, calling for the United States to revisit increasing the number of justices from nine to 13.

Her position raises a constitutional question with enormous political consequences: Who should shape the institution that makes final decisions on abortion, voting rights, presidential power, gun laws, federal regulations, and civil liberties?

Speaking Friday at the National Urban League’s annual conference in Nashville, Harris said, “We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices.” She connected the proposal to the structure of the federal judiciary while also calling for renewed debate over the Electoral College and statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, according to CNN’s report on her remarks.

The declaration was more direct than the position Harris took during her 2020 presidential campaign, when she said she was open to discussing expansion. It also follows a June 2026 interview with Don Lemon in which she said the country should explore adding seats and agreed with the proposed total of 13.

Harris has not announced a 2028 presidential campaign. Nevertheless, when a former vice president publicly embraces a structural change of this magnitude, we are no longer dealing with an obscure academic proposal. We are looking at a potential presidential platform that could define the next Democratic primary and reshape the national fight over the Supreme Court.

Why Kamala Harris Wants 13 Supreme Court Justices

The Supreme Court currently consists of Chief Justice John Roberts and eight associate justices. Six members were appointed by Republican presidents, including Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term.

The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents are Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. This six-to-three ideological division has influenced national arguments about abortion, presidential immunity, administrative power, environmental regulations, voting laws, and the constitutional reach of the federal government.

Harris linked her proposed 13-member court to the federal judicial system. Her Nashville wording referred to “13 district courts,” but the United States actually has 94 federal judicial districts and 13 federal circuits. Those circuits include 12 regional courts of appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

That distinction matters. Supreme Court justices are assigned responsibility for emergency applications and other matters arising from one or more circuits. The Supreme Court’s official explanation of its structure confirms that the federal judiciary is organized into 13 circuits and that individual justices handle certain applications from those jurisdictions.

Supporters therefore argue that 13 justices would permit a closer relationship between the number of Supreme Court members and the number of circuits. That was also a central justification for the Judiciary Act of 2023, which proposed adding four seats.

The historical connection is real, but it is not a constitutional requirement. Early Supreme Court justices physically traveled through assigned regions to hear cases, a practice known as riding circuit. That system effectively ended in the nineteenth century, long before the modern federal appellate structure developed.

Congress Has the Power to Change the Supreme Court’s Size

The Constitution establishes “one Supreme Court,” but it does not specify how many justices must serve on it. Congress determines the number through federal law. The current requirement appears in Title 28, Section 1 of the United States Code. It states that the Court consists of one chief justice and eight associate justices, with six members required for a quorum. Congress could change that statute through ordinary legislation without first amending the Constitution.

The Supreme Court itself acknowledges that Congress fixes the number of associate justices. The president nominates candidates, and the Senate decides whether to confirm them. A successful expansion would therefore require several separate political victories. Congress would have to approve legislation creating four seats, the president would have to sign it, and the Senate would have to confirm each nominee.

Although final passage of an ordinary bill requires majority support, Senate rules can create an additional obstacle. Unless senators change or eliminate the legislative filibuster, supporters could need 60 votes to end debate before holding a final vote.

Judicial nominations follow a different process. After Senate rule changes made over the past decade, Supreme Court nominees can be confirmed by a simple majority. A future president who supported expansion would consequently need both a law creating the seats and enough senators willing to confirm four new justices.

The Supreme Court Has Not Always Had Nine Members

Nine justices may feel permanent because that number has remained unchanged for more than 150 years. Historically, however, Congress adjusted the Court’s size repeatedly as the country expanded and political control changed.

The history shows that changes were not always neutral administrative decisions. Congress sometimes altered the Court’s authorized size to accommodate geographic growth, but lawmakers also used that authority to restrict or enhance a president’s appointment power.

The National Constitution Center’s judicial history explains that Congress briefly authorized a 10-member court in 1863. Three years later, it moved toward reducing the number to seven, partly to deny President Andrew Johnson additional appointments. Congress returned the number to nine in 1869, and President Ulysses S. Grant subsequently filled the restored seats.

That history undercuts the claim that nine is constitutionally sacred. It does not, however, prove that every proposed expansion would protect judicial independence. We must distinguish between whether Congress legally can add seats and whether doing so would produce a more trusted court.

The Shadow of Franklin Roosevelt’s Court Expansion Plan

Any modern expansion campaign will immediately be compared with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unsuccessful 1937 proposal. Roosevelt wanted authority to appoint an additional justice for every sitting member who remained after reaching age 70, potentially increasing the Court from nine to 15.

The proposal followed Supreme Court decisions invalidating important parts of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Although his administration framed the plan partly as a response to the age and workload of the justices, critics regarded it as an attempt to create a majority that would approve his economic program.

Roosevelt had just won a landslide reelection and enjoyed large Democratic majorities in Congress. Even with those advantages, the plan divided his party and failed. The Supreme Court Historical Society’s account records that seven of the 10 senators who signed a Judiciary Committee report condemning the proposal were Democrats. The episode became the most powerful historical warning used against changing the Court’s size for ideological reasons.

Harris would confront the same accusation. Republicans describe expansion as court packing because a Democratic president could fill four newly created seats and immediately replace the current conservative majority with a seven-to-six liberal majority.

Supporters reject that description. They argue that the modern confirmation process has already been manipulated and that expansion would correct an imbalance produced by inconsistent Senate treatment of Supreme Court vacancies.

Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett Remain Central to the Dispute

Democratic anger intensified after Senate Republicans declined to consider President Barack Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland. Republican leaders argued that voters should influence the choice through the approaching presidential election.

Four years later, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett shortly before the 2020 election. Democrats viewed the two decisions as irreconcilable, while Republicans argued that the circumstances differed because the same party controlled both the presidency and the Senate in 2020.

The result was a durable six-to-three conservative majority. For expansion advocates, that majority does not represent an ordinary political defeat. They see it as the product of a confirmation system in which the standards changed depending on which party would benefit.

Republicans answer that adding seats would be far more destructive. Their argument is that once one party expands the Court to gain an ideological advantage, the opposing party could add more seats when it returns to power. A 13-member court could eventually become a 15, 17, or 21-member court, leaving its size dependent on each election.

That escalation risk is the strongest objection Harris must address. If expansion becomes a routine tool for reversing unwanted decisions, the Court could lose its ability to convince Americans that constitutional rulings are something more than delayed acts of partisan politics.

The Judiciary Act Provides a Ready-Made Model

Harris did not release legislation in Nashville, but congressional Democrats have already written a proposal that matches her preferred number. The Judiciary Act of 2023, introduced by Representative Hank Johnson and Senator Ed Markey with other Democratic lawmakers, would have increased the Court from nine members to 13.

Its sponsors explicitly argued that the change would create one justice for each federal circuit and respond to what they described as a crisis of legitimacy. The official announcement of the Judiciary Act also connected expansion to the Garland and Barrett confirmation battles, the reversal of federal abortion rights, and ethics controversies surrounding members of the Court.

The measure did not become law, but it established the legislative framework that a future Democratic Congress could revive. Republicans are pursuing the opposite objective. In June 2026, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee advanced a proposed constitutional amendment that would permanently limit the Supreme Court to nine justices.

The committee approved it by a 15-to-8 party-line vote, according to Reuters. Senator Ted Cruz has promoted a similar “Keep Nine” amendment, arguing that expansion would weaken judicial independence and allow politicians to obtain legal outcomes they could not secure through elections or legislation. His proposal is supported by numerous Republican senators.

Permanently fixing the court at nine would be much harder than passing an ordinary expansion law. A constitutional amendment requires approval from two-thirds of both congressional chambers and ratification by three-quarters of the states, meaning 38 state legislatures.

Public Confidence Is Low, but Expansion Remains Divisive

Harris is entering the debate at a moment of extraordinary dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court. Gallup reported in July 2026 that only 33 percent of Americans approved of the Court’s performance, the lowest figure in the organization’s 26-year trend. Disapproval reached 61 percent.

The decline was not limited to Democrats. Republican approval dropped from 79 percent in September 2025 to 58 percent in July 2026, partly following decisions that went against the Trump administration. Democratic approval stood at 12 percent, while approval among independents was 35 percent, according to Gallup’s July survey.

Pew Research Center measured public sentiment differently but found a similar legitimacy problem. Its July 2026 survey found that 45 percent of adults viewed the Supreme Court favorably, while 53 percent held an unfavorable opinion. Favorability stood at 25 percent among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, compared with 69 percent among Republicans and Republican leaners.

The Pew findings also showed that 56 percent of Americans believed the Court had the right amount of power. Only 32 percent said it had too much. Low favorability therefore does not automatically amount to public support for radical restructuring.

A February 2026 national survey found that 39 percent supported increasing the Court from nine to 13 justices, while 32 percent opposed the change and 29 percent were undecided. In the same poll, 65 percent favored 18-year terms for justices, indicating that term limits attracted broader support than adding four seats.

For Harris, these numbers create both an opportunity and a warning. Many Americans are dissatisfied with the Court, but she would still need to convince a large undecided group that expansion would repair the institution instead of deepening its partisan identity.

Expansion Is Different From Term Limits and Ethics Reform

Harris previously supported the reform package President Joe Biden proposed in 2024. That plan called for 18 years of active Supreme Court service, a regular appointment every two years, and a binding ethics code requiring stronger disclosure and recusal standards.

Biden did not endorse adding seats. His proposal focused on reducing the randomness of lifetime vacancies and ensuring that each presidential term would normally produce two appointments. The legal questions surrounding term limits are more complicated than the law governing the Court’s size.

Article III grants federal judges tenure during “good behavior,” which has traditionally been understood as life tenure unless a judge resigns, retires, dies, or is removed through impeachment. Some scholars believe Congress could move a justice into senior judicial service after 18 active years, while others argue that a constitutional amendment would be necessary.

Expansion presents fewer constitutional uncertainties because Congress has changed the Court’s size before. Its greatest obstacles are political rather than legal. The Biden reform proposal also called for enforceable ethics rules covering gifts, political activity, and conflicts of interest. Those changes could be debated separately from expansion, allowing lawmakers to support greater accountability without endorsing four new seats.

What Four Additional Justices Would Actually Change

Adding four seats would not automatically reverse earlier Supreme Court decisions. Existing rulings would remain controlling precedent unless a later case gave the expanded court an opportunity to reconsider them.

The immediate effect would be a transformation of future decision-making. If one Democratic president nominated all four new members and a Democratic Senate confirmed them, the ideological balance could move from six to three conservative to seven to six liberal.

That new majority could influence future disputes involving reproductive rights, election administration, gun restrictions, executive authority, labor law, environmental regulation, and federal agency power. It could also reconsider recent precedents if suitable cases reached the court, although the outcome would depend on the legal views of the individual nominees.

A larger court might distribute circuit responsibilities more evenly and reduce the proportional influence of a single vacancy. At the same time, appointing four members in one political burst would give one president an unusually powerful opportunity to redirect constitutional law.

Expansion would not remove any current justice. The Constitution protects sitting justices during good behavior, so Congress could add seats but could not simply dismiss members to manufacture a preferred majority.

Harris Has Turned Court Expansion Into a 2028 Test

Harris’s position places pressure on other possible Democratic presidential contenders. Pete Buttigieg proposed a 15-member model during his 2020 campaign, while Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has supported expansion. California Governor Gavin Newsom has historically expressed skepticism but has more recently indicated greater openness to considering the idea.

The emerging divide will not simply concern the number nine versus the number 13. It will test how Democrats believe institutional power should be confronted after years of frustration with the Court’s conservative majority.

Supporters will argue that established rules have already been used strategically and that refusing structural reform would preserve the consequences of those choices indefinitely. Opponents will argue that transforming the Court in response to its decisions would invite endless retaliation and destroy the stability reformers claim to seek.

Harris has not yet explained whether new seats should be filled immediately, introduced gradually, or combined with term limits and enforceable ethics rules. She also has not detailed how she would prevent a future Republican government from expanding the Court again.

Those questions will determine whether her proposal develops into a serious governing program or remains a powerful campaign message. What is already clear is that Harris has moved beyond general concern about Supreme Court reform. She has embraced a specific number, 13, and reopened one of the most consequential constitutional fights in modern American politics.