Since SCOTUS whatnots have been discussed a lot recently, I’ve heard several mentions of court packing as a potential tactic to be used by either side.
As I understand it, there’s not many rules regarding the makeup of the SCOTUS so is there a limit to how big it could theoretically get?
Do all justices have to be present for every case? So if you have 100 of them, one’s likely to be ill at any particular time.
Do they have to work in a particular building? So fire codes may prevent certain numbers.
Or could there theoretically be a 1000 member court?
The only thing that the Constitution has to say about the makeup of the court is that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” and in another clause refers to a “Chief Justice.” Everything else is set by federal statute, and so is in principle open to being changed by another statute. The only limit is what is politically feasible, as FDR found to his chagrin.
No. The current quorum is only six of the nine justices.
They could meet in Nationals Stadium if Congress so decreed.
It’s instructive that the 9th Circuit is so large that hearings en banc - normally heard by every circuit judge - are heard by 11 randomly selected judges o&put of the 29. That is to say that at least one court has made rules to account for a court being very large.
Circuit courts typically hear cases in a three judge panel.
Now that that question has been answered, could Congress pass age limits. You must retire by age 75 or after 25 years? I’d assume they could do this for new justices, but could they apply it retroactively to sitting justices?
The constitution specifies that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Arguably simply getting older does not count as some sort of bad Behavior and thus would not be a constitutional method of forcing a seated justice from the court.
First, the OP asked what could “theoretically” happen. Second, Congress could theoretically change the size of the court next Tuesday if they felt like it.
The OP brought up court packing, which obviously requires changing the size of the court. So what’s relevant is what can be changed by statute. And the answer is, “almost anything,” short of the exceptions already noted. The Constitution itself has very little to say about the Court itself; even the power of judicial review of Congressional Acts is not specified, but had to be established by George Marshall.
I was in San Francisco some years ago and visited the beautiful old Federal courthouse there. As it happens, the Ninth Circuit was hearing an en banc challenge to some provision of California election law that day. I saw a bit of oral argument and felt sorry for the lawyers, getting pounded on by so many judges!
He was a great man, to be sure, but he wasn’t a judge, and that was a bit before his time.
What would happen if a natural disaster (earthquake) or an act of terror (bomb) killed every Supreme Court justice in one fell swoop? Would the president nominate nine, or are there limits?
It would be up to the president to nominate and, assuming the Senate is not in recess, the Senate to grant Advice and Consent prior to a president appointing a justice tot he court. If the Senate is out of session a president could make a recess appointment directly.
Though there is no precedent as far as I can tell but perhaps a president could nominate more than just the number of vacancies, nine in this case. But a president could only appoint up to nine, under current law, upon receiving the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
It’s Senate Rule XXXI: “Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.”
Presumably the rule could be changed, but it’s certainly common for nominations (judicial or executive) to expire under this rule subject to renomination.
