WASHINGTON — A Republican-backed Supreme Court constitutional amendment failed in the House on Wednesday despite receiving more yes votes than no votes. House Joint Resolution 1 drew a 212-206 majority but fell well short of the two-thirds support required to advance a constitutional amendment.

The official House roll call lists the measure as failed. All 211 Republicans who voted supported the proposal, along with one Democrat. Fifteen lawmakers did not vote.

With 418 members casting a yes or no vote, the resolution needed 279 votes to pass. It received 212, leaving it 67 votes short of the threshold.

House leaders considered the resolution under suspension of the rules, a procedure that also requires two-thirds support. The procedural choice did not create a higher barrier than the Constitution already imposed.

Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina was the only Democrat to vote yes. Democratic lawmakers cast 205 no votes, while independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California also opposed the measure. Seven Republicans and eight Democrats did not vote.

What H.J. Res. 1 would have changed

The proposed amendment would have required the Supreme Court to include nine members: one chief justice and eight associate justices. That matches the Court’s current composition.

The Constitution establishes one Supreme Court but does not specify how many justices must serve. Congress currently controls the Court’s size through federal law and can change it by passing another law.

H.J. Res. 1 would have transferred that decision from federal law into the Constitution. Future lawmakers could not have expanded or reduced the Court without approving and ratifying another constitutional amendment.

The resolution also included a seven-year ratification deadline. Had it cleared the House, it would have needed two-thirds support in the Senate and approval from 38 state legislatures.

The president does not sign or veto constitutional amendments. The National Archives’ amendment guidance explains that a successful congressional resolution goes directly into the state ratification process.

Republicans cast the proposal as a safeguard

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced H.J. Res. 1 in January 2025. The House Judiciary Committee advanced it 15-8 on June 3 before sending it to the full House.

The committee’s Republican-written majority report argued that fixing the Court at nine would shield it from political pressure. Supporters warned that allowing either party to add seats could begin a cycle of retaliatory expansions whenever control of Congress changes.

Republicans pointed to Democratic proposals that would expand the Court to 13 justices. They argued that adding seats to change the Court’s ideological balance would damage its independence and public legitimacy.

President Donald Trump appointed three justices during his first term, producing the Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority. The Court has since issued major rulings involving abortion, gun rights, voting rights, presidential authority and the power of federal agencies.

Speaker Mike Johnson said after the vote that “defending the integrity of the Supreme Court” should not have been controversial. Reuters reported that Republican leaders also viewed the vote as a way to make proposed Court expansion an issue before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

Democrats defended Congress’ existing power

Democrats argued that Congress should not permanently surrender its authority over the structure of the federal judiciary. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said lawmakers have changed the Court’s size throughout American history.

Raskin also argued that the proposal would lock the current conservative majority into place. His committee dissent connected the fight to the Senate’s refusal to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 and its confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett shortly before the 2020 election.

House Democrats are not united behind expanding the Court. Their near-unanimous opposition Wednesday nevertheless showed broad resistance to placing the nine-justice limit in the Constitution.

Some Democrats support legislation adding four seats, which would bring the Court to 13 justices. Others have proposed term limits, ethics rules or changes to the Court’s jurisdiction instead of expansion.

The Court has had nine justices since 1869

Congress created a six-seat Supreme Court through the Judiciary Act of 1789. Lawmakers later changed the authorized size several times as the country and federal court system expanded.

The authorized number ranged from five to 10 during the 19th century, although planned reductions did not always produce that number of sitting justices. Congress ultimately returned the Court to nine seats in 1869.

The Supreme Court’s official institutional history says the number changed six times before settling at nine. Congress has not enacted another change since then.

The most famous modern attempt came in 1937. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed allowing an additional justice for each sitting justice older than 70 years and six months, up to six new seats.

Roosevelt’s plan could have expanded the Court to 15 justices, but Congress rejected it. The proposal explains why Court expansion remains closely associated with the 20th century even though the number of authorized seats never changed during that period.

What the failed vote means

H.J. Res. 1 will not proceed to the Senate or the states following Wednesday’s failed House vote. Supporters would need another successful House vote or a new resolution in a future Congress to revive the effort.

The result does not change the Court’s current membership. Nine justices remain authorized under federal law, while Congress retains its ability to reconsider that number through ordinary legislation.

The vote instead established a clear political divide. Nearly every Democrat and the House’s lone independent opposed a permanent constitutional limit, while every voting Republican supported one. The immediate proposal is over, but the larger fight over the Supreme Court’s structure remains unresolved.