A proposed constitutional amendment that would have permanently fixed the Supreme Court at nine justices failed in the House on Wednesday, falling well short of the two-thirds majority required for passage.
The measure, House Joint Resolution 1, known as the “Keep Nine Amendment,” was defeated 212-206, with 15 members not voting. It would have required the Supreme Court to “be composed of nine justices.”
The House Judiciary Committee had cleared the amendment in June on a party-line vote.
Wednesday’s floor vote broke almost entirely along party lines. Voting in favor were 211 Republicans plus Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C. Voting against were 205 Democrats plus Rep. Kevin Kiley, I-Calif., who caucuses with Republicans.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, was among those who voted against the amendment. In July, when asked by The Federalist about his stance on court-packing and whether he would support HJR 1, Cuellar had said he opposes court-packing, but he was the only one of 16 vulnerable House Democrats contacted who responded to the inquiry at the time.
Why the Amendment Was Introduced
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced the Keep Nine Amendment as a check against growing calls within the Democratic Party to expand the size of the Supreme Court if Democrats win control of the House in the 2026 midterms.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has signaled his party would move to add justices to the court if he becomes speaker in January. Last month, Jeffries said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and other court-packing supporters on the House Judiciary Committee “are going to take the lead on what dramatic reform of the Supreme Court looks like.”
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told NBC News on Sunday that he supports adding four new justices to the Supreme Court. Potential 2028 presidential contenders, including Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, have also expressed support for expanding the court.
Biggs, explaining his push for the amendment, wrote: “If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That’s why I’m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of” justices.
A Coalition’s Long-Odds Strategy
The amendment had backing from the Keep Nine Coalition, a group of grassroots organizations and former bipartisan elected officials focused on protecting the Supreme Court’s independence over the long term.
In June, Keep Nine Director Roman Buhler told The Federalist he did not expect Congress to actually ratify the amendment, but hoped that support from even a small number of Democrats could discourage a future Democratic majority from attempting to expand the court.
“Our thinking is that if a handful of Democrats in Congress stand up and say [they’re] not going to allow the independence of the Supreme Court to be undermined … and they’re not going to go along with court expansion, then the leaders of whatever Democratic majority might be elected in the future might … realize [they] don’t have the votes to expand the court,” Buhler said. “Even a handful of Democrats that are willing to stand up now and say, ‘Let’s not do this,’ could have a big impact because it could change the strategic calculation for all Democrats.”
The House is scheduled to finish business on Thursday before a week-long recess. Lawmakers are set to return on Sept. 14.
Add comment