House Democrats' Rejection of the Keep Nine Amendment Reveals Intent to Pack the Supreme Court
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "205 House Democrats Vote To Kill Anti-Court Packing Amendment." September 2, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
This article argues that when almost all House Democrats voted against a proposed constitutional amendment to keep the Supreme Court at nine justices, it proved they secretly want to expand the court for political gain. The author points to statements from Democratic leaders about court reform as further evidence of this hidden agenda.
Conclusion
Nearly unanimous Democratic opposition to the Keep Nine Amendment demonstrates that Democrats intend to expand the Supreme Court for partisan advantage if they gain power.
Premises
- 205 House Democrats voted against a constitutional amendment that would have simply kept the Supreme Court at nine justices, its current and historical size.
- House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has stated that Democrats will pursue 'dramatic reform' of the Supreme Court if he becomes speaker.
- Rep. James Clyburn publicly stated support for adding four new justices to the Supreme Court.
- Prominent Democratic figures like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg have voiced support for court expansion.
- A Democratic congressman (Cuellar) who claimed to oppose court-packing nonetheless voted against the amendment that would have prevented it, suggesting his stated position was insincere.
- The vote fell almost entirely along party lines, with only one Democrat (Davis) breaking ranks to support the amendment.
Assumptions
- Voting against the Keep Nine Amendment is equivalent to supporting court-packing (rather than, for example, opposing the amendment for procedural, political, or unrelated substantive reasons).
- The motivations of a few vocal Democratic leaders (Jeffries, Clyburn) can be generalized to the entire Democratic caucus.
- Court expansion, if pursued, would necessarily be done to achieve partisan outcomes rather than for any legitimate institutional reason.
- The current number of nine justices represents a neutral, non-partisan baseline worth constitutionally enshrining.
- Democrats had genuine legislative opportunity to demonstrate opposition to court-packing through this specific vote, and abstaining or opposing signals endorsement of expansion plans.