Democratic senator accuses Biden administration of ‘completely’ chickening out on Supreme Court reform
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said the Biden administration failed to speak forcefully about problems with the Supreme Court, accusing it of being “completely chicken” on reform. His criticism comes amid renewed Democratic calls to change the court and wider debate over its integrity and structure.
Whitehouse said Biden’s commission on the court took no position on expanding it and prevented two members, Nancy Gertner and Laurence Tribe, from setting out their criticisms in its report. Gertner and Tribe later argued for adding justices; Kamala Harris has also backed expansion, along with Electoral College reform and statehood for Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. A law professor quoted in the article said changing the court’s composition would be extremely difficult.
- Whitehouse says Biden’s team avoided confronting Supreme Court problems.
- Gertner and Tribe later advocated expanding the court.
- Harris has renewed calls for court and electoral changes.
New here? Start with this
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and has the final say on how federal law and the Constitution are interpreted. Its nine justices serve for life, unless they retire or are removed, and are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
President Joe Biden set up a commission to examine possible changes to the court, including whether to add more justices. The commission did not recommend a position on expanding the court; two members, Nancy Gertner and Laurence Tribe, later argued in favour of doing so.
Changing the court’s size would require an act of Congress, so it would need support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the president’s approval. The debate matters because the court’s decisions can shape rights and government policy for years, while changes to its structure could affect public confidence in its independence.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of reform argue that the Supreme Court’s integrity and structure deserve frank scrutiny, and that the administration’s commission weakened public debate by declining to take a position and, according to Whitehouse, limiting dissenting members’ criticisms. They see proposals such as adding justices as legitimate ways to address concerns about the court, alongside broader reforms to representation.
The case against
Those wary of changing the court argue that altering its size could make its composition a political instrument and weaken confidence in its independence. The commission’s restraint can be defended as a way to examine the issues without endorsing a contested remedy, especially given the substantial difficulty of enacting structural change.