III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 164 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the number of justices of the Supreme 

Court of the United States should remain at 9. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2021 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the number of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States should 

remain at 9. 

Whereas the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to 

amend the Judicial System of the United States’’, approved April 10, 1869 (commonly known as the ‘‘Judiciary Act of 1869’’) (16 Stat. 44; chapter 22), states that 

‘‘the Supreme Court of the United States shall hereafter 

consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and 

eight associate justices’’; 

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has consisted of a Chief Justice and 8 associate Justices for 152 

years; 

Whereas previous attempts to increase the number of justices 

on the Supreme Court of the United States have been reVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:15 Apr 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR164.IS SR164

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 164 IS 

jected and widely condemned by individuals of both political parties; 

Whereas, in 1937, when former President Franklin Delano 

Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill 

of 1937, a bill that sought to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court of the United States from 9 

justices to 15 Justices, he was harshly criticized by both 

parties and his own Vice President, John Nance Garner; 

Whereas, the 1937 Senate Judiciary Committee report, in response to the Court-packing plan by President Roosevelt, 

decried the plan as ‘‘a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle’’, that 

‘‘[i]ts ultimate operation would be to make this government one of men rather than one of law’’ and that it was 

‘‘a measure, which should be so emphatically rejected 

that its parallel will never again be presented to the free 

representatives of the free people of America’’; 

Whereas, during the Trump Administration, Democrats have 

refused to recognize the legitimacy of nominations made 

by President Trump to the Supreme Court of the United 

States and have advocated for packing the Court with additional justices appointed by a future Democrat president; 

Whereas, in 1983 during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, then-Senator Joe Biden noted that Court packing 

was a ‘‘bonehead idea’’ and ‘‘a terrible, terrible mistake’’ 

that ‘‘put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress, in my view—the most significant body in this 

country, the Supreme Court of the United States of 

America’’; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 164 IS 

Whereas, in 2005 during a speech on the Senate floor, thenSenator Joe Biden praised members of the Democrat 

Party for their ‘‘act of courage’’ in opposing the Courtpacking plan of President Roosevelt, which he described 

as a ‘‘power grab’’; 

Whereas, in 2019, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

stated, ‘‘I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court’’, and that ‘‘if anything would make the Court look partisan, it would be 

that’’; 

Whereas, in 2021, Justice Stephen Breyer urged supporters 

of court packing to ‘‘think long and hard’’ about undermining the independence of the court, noting that it is 

imperative the public ‘‘trust that the court is guided by 

legal principle, not politics’’ and that ‘‘structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence 

can only feed that latter perception, further eroding that 

trust’’; 

Whereas the Constitution of the United States is based on 

the principle of separation of powers to provide for 

checks and balances on each branch of the Federal Government and expanding the Supreme Court of the United 

States purely for political advantage threatens the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances 

established in the Constitution of the United States; 

Whereas the Federal judiciary is insulated from political influence through lifetime appointments and other measures to preserve its independence and an attempt to expand the Supreme Court of the United States purely for 

political purposes threatens the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court and, thus, the entirety of the 

judiciary it oversees; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•SRES 164 IS 

Whereas any attempt to increase the number of justices of 

the Supreme Court of the United States or ‘‘pack the 

Court’’ would undermine the democratic institutions and 

destroy the credibility of the highest court in the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate opposes any attempt to in2 crease the number of justices of the Supreme Court of 

3 the United States or otherwise pack the Court. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS