The Wrong Way to Win
Court-packing offers a shortcut that leads nowhere worth going.
Checks & Balances is a newsletter of the Society for the Rule of Law Institute
By Finn McCarthy and Grant Goral
After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais earlier this term, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries supplied a one-word verdict for the Court: “illegitimate.” But he did not stop there. The presumptive next Speaker of the House if Democrats retake the chamber this November declared that “everything is on the table to deal with this corrupt MAGA majority.” His colleague Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, put a finer point on what this Supreme Court “transformation” would entail: expanding the number of Justices from nine to thirteen.
Neither addressed the merits of the Callais decision. They just offered conclusory concerns about the Court’s legitimacy—concerns that can apparently only be allayed by more Democratic appointed Justices. This is not an ordinary political disagreement with an adversarial Court. It is a brazen challenge to judicial independence and the Rule of Law.
Regrettably, this flippant rhetoric is not a novelty among prominent Democrats. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, California Rep. Ro Khanna, and former Vice President Kamala Harris - all potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates - similarly advocated adding seats to the nation’s highest tribunal. In today’s Democratic Party, court-packing no longer seems to be a fringe position; it is becoming the price of admission for anyone who hopes to lead it.
