There are no term limits for Supreme Court justices because the Constitution doesn’t allow them. Article III, Section 1 says federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” which has always meant they keep the job until they die, retire, or are removed through impeachment. No statute, election, or presidential order can shorten that tenure. Changing it would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment, and the framers made amendments deliberately hard to pass.
The Constitutional Text That Creates Life Tenure
The controlling language is one sentence. Article III, Section 1 reads: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”1Constitution Annotated | Library of Congress. U.S. Constitution – Article III
That standard applies to Supreme Court justices, federal appellate judges, and federal district judges alike. There is no mandatory retirement age, no periodic reconfirmation, and no recall mechanism.2United States Courts. Types of Federal Judges The phrase was borrowed from English common law, where “good Behaviour” was the contrast to appointments held “at the pleasure of the Crown.” In American practice, it works the same way: a justice holds the seat indefinitely, and the only way to cut that tenure short against the justice’s will is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
Why the Framers Wrote It That Way
The framers wanted judges insulated from politics. Alexander Hamilton made the case in Federalist No. 78, calling the good-behaviour standard “one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government” and arguing it was essential to “a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”3The Avalon Project. The Federalist Papers: No. 78
His reasoning was direct. If judges served fixed terms or depended on reappointment, they would bend to the political branches. “Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence,” he wrote.3The Avalon Project. The Federalist Papers: No. 78 The framers wanted judges willing to strike down unconstitutional laws and protect minority rights even when it was unpopular. A judge worried about the next job cannot reliably do that.
There was a structural piece too. The judiciary was considered the weakest branch, with no army and no budget authority. Hamilton described it as being “in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches,” and argued that permanency in office was the main safeguard.3The Avalon Project. The Federalist Papers: No. 78 Life tenure was meant to give the Court the one thing Congress and the president could not take away: time.
The Only Ways a Justice Leaves
Life tenure does not mean justices literally serve until death. Most retire. Under 28 U.S.C. § 371, any federal judge appointed during good behaviour can retire with full salary once combined age and service requirements are met, starting at age 65 with 15 years of service and sliding down to age 70 with 10 years of service.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 371 – Retirement on Salary; Retirement in Senior Status Justices who step down are generally called “retired” and do not continue deciding Supreme Court cases. When a justice retires, the president nominates a successor.
Disability retirement is available under 28 U.S.C. § 372. A justice can voluntarily certify a permanent disability in writing, with the certificate signed by the Chief Justice. Ten or more years of service brings full salary for life; less than ten brings half salary.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 372 – Retirement for Disability; Substitute Judge on Failure to Retire For lower court judges who refuse to step down despite a disability, the statute lets a judicial council certify the disability to the president, who can then appoint an additional judge. That substitute-judge mechanism does not meaningfully apply to Supreme Court justices. There is no way to force a mentally or physically incapacitated justice off the bench short of impeachment.
Impeachment is the only involuntary path. The House impeaches by simple majority; the Senate convicts and removes by two-thirds vote.6U.S. Courts. Judges and Judicial Administration – Journalist’s Guide Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, Samuel Chase in 1804, and the Senate acquitted him the following year when none of the eight charges reached the two-thirds threshold.7Federal Judicial Center. Samuel Chase Impeached That acquittal established the informal rule that impeachment is reserved for serious misconduct, not disagreement with a justice’s rulings.
Why the Debate Has Intensified
Life tenure meant something different in 1789. Before the 1950s, justices served an average of 11 to 15 years. Since 1970, the average tenure for justices who have left the Court is around 25 years.8Supreme Court of the United States. Frequently Asked Questions on Justices People live longer. Presidents nominate younger candidates who can shape the law for decades. And justices increasingly time their retirements around presidents of compatible ideology.
The consequences flow from that. A single presidential term can set the Court’s direction for a generation, and vacancies fall unpredictably across administrations. Confirmation battles have grown fierce because the stakes of each seat are enormous. And because impeachment is the only forced-removal tool, there is no practical mechanism to address a justice who is no longer able to do the job but will not step down. Those are the pressures driving the current push for term limits.
Current Reform Proposals
The most common proposal is an 18-year term with staggered appointments, giving each president a nomination every two years. The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, established in 2021, reported “considerable, bipartisan support” for the idea.
In 2024, President Biden formally called for 18-year term limits as part of a broader reform package that also included a binding code of conduct for justices and a constitutional amendment on presidential immunity.9SCOTUSblog. Biden Proposes Supreme Court Reforms Senators Welch and Manchin proposed a constitutional amendment imposing 18-year limits on future justices, with the chief justice role rotating among the most senior members; their version would not touch any sitting justice.10Senator Welch. Supreme Court Term-Limits Amendment Proposed by Sens. Manchin, Welch A separate bill, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, was reintroduced in the House in 2025.11Congress.gov. Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2025
Reformers are divided on whether Congress can act by ordinary statute or whether an amendment is required. Some argue a statute could move justices to a senior role after 18 years without technically removing them, sidestepping the good-behaviour clause. Others counter that anything short of an amendment would be struck down by the current Court. An amendment is more legally durable, but the political path is far harder.
What Changing the System Would Require
If term limits need a constitutional amendment, the process is deliberately difficult. Article V provides two proposal routes. The only one ever used requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The other, a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, has never been successfully invoked.12Constitution Annotated | Library of Congress. ArtV.1 Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution
Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, currently 38 of 50.12Constitution Annotated | Library of Congress. ArtV.1 Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution Only 27 amendments have been ratified in nearly 250 years, and none has changed the structure of the federal judiciary. The framers set the bar high on purpose. Whether that caution still fits a Court whose members now serve twice as long as they did in the early republic is the question the reform debate keeps returning to.