H.J.Res. 174 explained · 119th Congress · Pending in Congress
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.
Cosponsors: 6 (6 D, 0 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-14
Introduced: 2026-05-04
Latest action (2026-05-04): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
What H.J.Res. 174 does, in plain terms
The Congressional Research Service has not published a summary of H.J.Res. 174 yet. Its official title: “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.”.
Constitution Index
“VFA Constitution grade”
Not graded yet
H.J.Res. 174 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.
The Framers
“Founders’ Verdict”
Confidence 1.00
Archived SI output (machine-generated)No editorial review recorded. This historical SI verdict was machine-generated by software and predates the review desk; check it against the official bill text.
Synthesis
Unanimous approval: Congress may propose an amendment imposing term limits on judicial offices under Article V, altering Article III, Section 1 tenure during good behavior.
The proposal of an amendment to the Constitution by joint resolution of Congress, as here referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, follows the prescribed mode of amendment. Article V empowers Congress, upon the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, to propose amendments without limitation save the equal suffrage of States in the Senate. Such a proposal alters the tenure of judicial offices under Article III, Section 1, from 'during good Behaviour' to term limits, a change permissible through the amendatory process to adapt the frame of government to republican exigencies. While ju…
The proposal of an amendment to the Constitution by a joint resolution of Congress is expressly authorized by the text of Article V, which empowers Congress, upon the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, to propose amendments. This process respects the sovereign right of the people to alter their fundamental charter through deliberate means. While Article III, Section 1 establishes that judicial offices shall be held during good Behaviour, nothing in the Constitution prohibits an amendment from modifying this provision to introduce term limits, as the amendment process itself is the supre…
The introduction and referral to committee of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution is a constitutional exercise of congressional authority. Article V expressly empowers Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, to propose amendments to the Constitution. This process commences with introduction in either House and committee deliberation, governed by the constitutional grant to each House to determine the Rules of its Proceedings (Article I, Section 5). While the substance of judicial tenure during good Behaviour secures independence from legislativ…
The proposed resolution invokes the express power of Congress under Article V to propose amendments to this Constitution upon a vote of two-thirds in both Houses. This authority admits no exception prohibiting alterations to the tenure of judicial offices described in Article III, Section 1, as the amendatory process is the prescribed means to modify the frame of government established by the people. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), this Court affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the duty of judicial review, yet such review yields to the deliberate mechanism of Article V, which empowers…
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
What should pass
“VFA SI Solution”
Archived SI output (machine-generated) · No editorial review recorded
This historical draft has no editorial review time on record. Check its claims against the original bill and current law.
Supreme Court Term Limits Constitutional Amendment
Generated by VFA SI Solutions
To impose term limits on Supreme Court justices by amending Article III to replace life tenure with fixed terms, promoting rotation and accountability.
Bipartisan rationale: Honors Democratic priorities of judicial accountability and reform to counter long-term ideological majorities; honors Republican priorities of term limits, fresh perspectives, and checks on unaccountable lifetime power.
Report an error in this Solution
Citizen Consensus
“Do you support this VFA SI Solution?”
One vote per verified account; you can change it any time. Only verified accounts count, results publish once 30 verified people have voted, and state and district results count only people who attested a home ZIP code. How this works.
Email verification is not switched on yet, so no vote counts toward results yet. Votes cast now are saved and count once the voter verifies their email address.
Sign in or create a free account to vote.
Add a short reason (optional)
/280 · no links or contact details · reasons are reviewed before anyone sees them, and many never are shown.
Your vote is saved but held out of published results by an automated integrity check (for example, several accounts voting from one browser).
Your vote is saved. It will count once you verify your email address. Verify on your account page.
Your vote counts nationally. Add your home ZIP code to count in your state and district too.
Your vote counts nationally and in .
Reason saved privately; it is shown only if it passes review.
Verified participants nationwide · n =
Self-selected participants, not a random sample; ± is the 95% sampling margin.
Not enough verified votes yet. Results publish at verified votes.
A sudden surge of votes on this item was flagged and is under review; votes from new accounts in that surge are held out until it is resolved.
For journalists and bloggers
“Embed this grade”
Free to use with the link back. The badge and card update when the grade changes. Embed terms →