The Supreme Court Needs Term Limits, and the Reason Isn’t What You Think
The case for Supreme Court term limits could be made with one simple argument.
The political debate over term limits for Supreme Court justices often centers on concerns about influence and abuse of power. Critics argue that lifetime appointments grant justices too much authority for too long and that these extended tenures can create a sense of invulnerability that makes them feel less accountable. However, there is another, less discussed, and perhaps more obvious reason that justifies the need for term limits: people are living significantly longer.
In the late 18th century, when the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution, the meaning of a “lifetime appointment” to the Supreme Court was entirely different from what it is today. At that time, the average life expectancy in both Europe and the Americas was only around 34 years. The constitutional framers could hardly have envisioned justices serving for decades, such tenures would have seemed impossible.
Today, however, thanks to centuries of progress in medicine and living conditions, the average life expectancy in the United States has soared to nearly 80 years. This increase means that Supreme Court justices can, and often do, serve for much longer periods than the Founding Fathers anticipated.
In fact, the average lifespan and tenure of justices has steadily increased over the past two centuries. On average, justices confirmed before 1800 lived to age 67, while those confirmed between 1950 and 1974 lived to around 82. And justices confirmed just after the Civil war served about 16 years, while those confirmed at the end of the 20th century have served, on average, 26 years — a number that will continue to grow as the incumbent justices serve out their terms.
Meanwhile, the age at which people are becoming justices has been steadily decreasing, with the average age at confirmation declining to 52 years from 55 in 1900. And Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson, confirmed at 49 and 51 respectively, may very well serve into the middle of this century.
These trends mean that impact of a single judicial appointment now spans generations. Justices long outlast the presidents that appointed them, giving them arguably more enduring influence over the direction of the nation. The result? A generational gap where justices reflect the nation at the time when they were appointed, not today.
As the nation progresses and values shift, a Court composed of justices who reflect the beliefs and perspectives of past generations will grow out of touch with contemporary society. This growing disconnect can lead to rulings that feel antiquated and erode public confidence in the judiciary. It is thus no surprise that confidence in the court has been plummeting to an all time low.
Through this lens, President Biden’s plan to reform the Supreme Court and restore confidence is not surprising. The argument that increased life expectancy necessitates systemic changes is not unique to this case. In fact, similar adjustments have been made in other areas to address the political challenges of longer lifespans.
The Social Security system, established in 1935, was designed when the average American lived to about 60. As people began living longer, the system faced significant financial strain. With more people living in retirement for longer, the ratio of people paying into the system to those drawing benefits decreased and created a funding crisis. To address this, the full retirement age was raised from 65 to 67 and the government increased payroll taxes for companies.
As people live longer and choose to work beyond traditional retirement ages, age discrimination in the workplace also became an issue. Older workers faced significant challenges in hiring, retention, and promotion as compared to their younger colleagues. To combat this, legislation such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act were enacted to prohibit employment discrimination against individuals 40 years of age or older and provide funding for job training.
Much like these changes, the judiciary must adapt to this simple, biological reality: people are living longer. Without changing with the times, the Supreme Court risks becoming a distant relic of the past, out of touch with the will of the people and eroding confidence in its ability to uphold justice in today’s world.