The House Judiciary Committee voted 15-8 along party lines to advance HJR 1, a constitutional amendment fixing the Supreme Court at nine justices, with zero Democratic support.
The House Judiciary Committee advanced HJR 1, a proposed constitutional amendment that would fix the Supreme Court's membership at nine justices, on a 15-8 party-line vote, with no Democratic member casting a vote in support [1]. The markup, held June 3, 2026, produced no bipartisan agreement on the measure, which proponents frame as a structural safeguard against future court-expansion efforts by either party [1].
The resolution is a joint resolution of Congress, meaning it would require two-thirds approval in both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of the states to take effect as a constitutional amendment. The committee vote sends HJR 1 to the full House floor, where Republican leaders control the calendar but face a narrower path to the supermajority threshold required for constitutional change. The committee's 15-8 outcome tracked exactly along party lines, reflecting the degree to which judicial structure has become a partisan pressure point heading into the 2026 midterm cycle [1].
The markup arrived against a backdrop of renewed Democratic interest in court expansion. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has signaled openness to adding justices to the Supreme Court if Democrats recapture the House majority in November, a posture that represents a notable shift in how prominently Democratic leaders are willing to discuss court reform [1]. That signaling followed the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a redistricting ruling that drew sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups and accelerated calls on the left for structural court reform. The zero-Democratic-vote outcome in committee makes clear that the current minority has no appetite to constrain that option legislatively.
The practical significance of HJR 1 lies less in its near-term prospects, which are constrained by the supermajority requirements, than in its function as a forcing mechanism in the court-reform debate. A floor vote, if it materializes, would compel every House member to go on record on the question of court size, converting an abstract policy discussion into a concrete electoral accountability moment. That record would follow candidates into November in competitive districts where judicial independence polling remains contested.
The full House must schedule a floor vote before HJR 1 can advance further. If it fails, or if Democrats gain the majority in November, the question of court size will almost certainly return to committee under a different majority with different intentions.