What Would Expanding the Supreme Court to 13 Justices Actually Change?
Readers will learn what a 13-justice Supreme Court would require, why Representative James Clyburn supports the idea, and why the change would have long-lasting effects.
A Number Set by Congress
The Supreme Court has nine seats, but that number is not written into the Constitution. It is set by federal law. That means expanding the Court to 13 justices would not require a constitutional amendment. It would take a bill changing the size, the president’s signature, and then confirmation proceedings for the additional seats. Once those seats exist, filling them would work the way Supreme Court appointments always work: the president nominates, and the Senate decides.
Clyburn’s Argument
Representative James Clyburn has pushed back on the idea that nine is a fixed, sacred number. The Post and Courier has reported that he called nine “not a magic number” and observed that the Court has not always had nine members. He also argued that the country is “way more diverse” and “a lot bigger” than it was when nine became the standard. His historical references were pointed: he singled out Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, decisions that enforced racial oppression and segregation, as examples of why the Court’s makeup matters.
Clyburn is not alone among House members. The website supreme13.org, which tracks endorsements of Supreme Court expansion, lists U.S. representatives who have publicly backed a larger Court and provides documentation of their support. The exact roster shifts over time, but the list gives a concrete picture of how much support exists inside the House.
What Would Actually Change
A move from nine to 13 would not just alter the number of chairs around the bench. The new seats would be filled by the president in office at the time, subject to Senate confirmation. Because justices serve for life, the effect would outlast any single election. An expansion could shape the direction of federal law for decades, which is exactly why the proposal draws strong reactions from both supporters and critics.
Clyburn’s point that the Court has not always had nine members is part of the historical record. The size of the bench has shifted before, even if the modern nine-justice Court is now deeply entrenched. There is no modern precedent for adding four seats at once, and no settled evidence about what that would mean for the Court’s workload, its public legitimacy, or the balance of power among the branches. Those unknowns are why the debate is likely to remain intense.