Few things in American politics unite our polarized country like term limits. Americans may disagree on nearly everything else, but many agree that no one should hold great public power forever.

That idea now reaches the Supreme Court. The Court has of late given Americans of every political stripe something to criticize; birthright citizenship, abortion, presidential immunity, and so much more. Its rulings often shape daily life for millions of people. Yet the justices who make those decisions can serve for a lifetime.

A group of Democratic U.S. senators recently introduced the Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act, or BATL Act. It would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices and create a regular appointment schedule, with one new justice appointed every two years.

That proposal is a sign that term limits are not just a congressional issue. But legislation from Washington, D.C., is not likely to solve the problem. Similar bills to limit members of Congress are introduced again and again, only to die in Congress without so much as a hearing.

That is why the Convention of States resolution matters. It calls for an Article V convention of the states to discuss and propose amendments that include placing fixed term limits on federal officials. The words “federal officials” are important. They include the federal judiciary, from lower-court judges to justices of the Supreme Court.

A Court Treated as Final

Supreme Court decisions are often awaited with the breathless anticipation seen in Vatican Square when people wait for the white smoke. Many Americans treat a Court ruling as the final word on the Constitution and public policy.

Congressional term limits poster child Nancy Pelosi once described a Supreme Court ruling this way: “So this is almost as if God has spoken.” That comment may sound extreme, but it reflects a common attitude. When the Court speaks, elected officials, news outlets, advocates, and citizens often act as if there is little left to say.

Of course, the Court is important. The Constitution gives federal judges a vital role in deciding cases and controversies. But justices are not kings, priests, or flawless guardians of the nation. They are lawyers in robes. They are human beings, with strengths, weaknesses, beliefs, blind spots, and limits.

The Constitution says federal judges hold office during “good Behaviour,” which has long been understood to give them life tenure unless they resign, retire, die, or are impeached and removed. That system was meant to protect judges from political pressure. It was not meant to give any person permanent control over major questions of commerce, liberty, citizenship, and life and death.

Lifetime Power Has Costs

Lifetime appointments have made Supreme Court nominations and confirmations into political wars. Because a single justice may serve for decades, every vacancy can shift the Court’s direction for a generation. The stakes are far too high for a representative government that depends on public accountability.

Americans across the political spectrum should be able to agree on one basic point: judges are fallible human beings, and no fallible person should exercise immense government power without limit.

History offers uncomfortable examples. In their final years on the Court, some justices stayed well past the point when they could fully perform the demanding work of the office.

Justice William O. Douglas suffered a serious stroke in 1974. His health declined sharply, yet he tried to remain involved with the Court even after his resignation. Justice Stephen Field remained on the Court into old age despite major physical and mental decline. His fellow justices eventually urged him to retire. Justice Joseph McKenna also remained on the bench after a stroke left his mental decline increasingly clear.

Such vignettes should not be used to mock people who faced illness or age. They should instead remind us that the nation should not have to depend on a justice’s health, pride, or political timing to determine when a powerful seat becomes vacant.

A fixed term would create a fair and predictable rotation. It would allow qualified judges to serve with independence while ensuring regular turnover. No justice would need to cling to office. No political party would need to wait for a death or retirement to have a chance at filling a seat.

Accountability Matters

Term limits would also help address another problem: conflicts of interest. In 2021, the Wall Street Journal reported that 131 federal judges heard 685 cases involving companies in which they or close family members owned stock between 2010 and 2018. About two-thirds of those cases reportedly ended in rulings favorable to the judges’ or their families’ financial interests.

Federal law requires judges to step aside from cases in which they have a financial interest. Whether these failures were deliberate or “honest mistakes,” they damage public trust. Americans should never be left wondering whether justice is for sale—or whether powerful officials live by a different set of rules.

Fixed terms would not solve every ethical problem. They would, however, make it easier to rotate out judges who cannot or will not meet the highest standards of impartiality. Public service should mean serving the public, not building a permanent personal office.

The Remedy

The Convention of States resolution does not itself impose a particular term length. It calls for the states to debate and propose amendments that limit terms for federal officials and members of Congress. That leaves room for serious discussion about the best structure: how long judges should serve, whether limits should differ by court, and how to preserve judicial independence.

Most importantly, an Article V convention can propose an amendment when Congress refuses to act. But a proposed amendment would not become part of the Constitution unless three-fourths of the states ratify it. That high bar ensures that any reform would need broad support across the country.

The Supreme Court should be independent. But the Supreme Court is not untouchable. Term limits for all federal officials, including the justices of the Supreme Court, would restore rotation, accountability, and the basic truth that government offices belong to the people, not to the people who occupy them.