WASHINGTON, D.C. — Legal experts and policy advocates at the Brennan Center for Justice are calling for structural changes to the U.S. Supreme Court amid growing concerns about declining public confidence, a lack of transparency in the ruling process and the absence of enforceable judicial ethics rules.
In a new policy analysis, “How to Fix the Supreme Court,” Brennan Center President Michael Waldman outlines a number of changes Congress could make to strengthen transparency and accountability at the Court, including setting term limits for justices, requiring written explanations for emergency decisions issued through the shadow docket and adopting a mandatory judicial ethics code.
At the same time, the ongoing debate over the Court’s role in several highly significant constitutional disputes involving voting rights, executive authority and immigration policy is generating increased concern within the legal community and among the public.
According to the Brennan Center, some reforms to the Court could be enacted by Congress without amending the Constitution. For example, the organization suggests justices should serve 18-year terms, after which they would assume senior status and continue serving in other judicial roles.
Supporters argue that such a change would reduce politicization in the confirmation process and ensure regular turnover on the Court.
At present, unlike other federal courts in the country, the Supreme Court lacks an ethics code covering issues such as potential conflicts of interest and outside activities by justices.
Advocates of judicial reform contend that this absence is one factor contributing to public distrust in the independence of the judicial branch.
Another major element of the proposed reforms addresses the shadow docket and emergency rulings. Experts argue that the increasing use of this process makes Supreme Court decision-making less transparent and weakens the rule of law.
Since January 2025, the Supreme Court has issued more than 25 shadow docket decisions involving actions taken by the presidential administration, according to the Brennan Center.
Critics say the impact of such decisions can be enormous, despite the fact that many are issued without clear public explanations.
They argue that when courts resolve complex constitutional disputes outside standard procedures, the role of lower courts and the public in examining evidence is significantly diminished.
The Brennan Center recommends requiring signed opinions for emergency decisions and limiting such rulings to genuine emergencies rather than broader policy disputes.
Public mistrust of the Supreme Court as a neutral enforcer of constitutional law has continued to grow, according to national polling released in recent years.
Several surveys conducted by national media outlets found confidence in the Court reached historic lows, driven by political controversies and transparency concerns.
Along with ethics rules and limits on the shadow docket, reform advocates also support allowing cameras in the Supreme Court courtroom and making changes to the judicial appointment process to reduce conflicts and increase public confidence.
Reformers emphasize that the goal of their proposals is not to weaken the Supreme Court, but to preserve its legitimacy during a period when it is being asked to resolve disputes of major political significance.
Several important decisions involving voting rights and the scope of executive authority are expected soon, and legal experts say those rulings could significantly shape the future of constitutional law.
Supporters of reform maintain that greater transparency and structural changes would strengthen judicial accountability and better align the Court with democratic values and principles.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
