By As the losses keep piling up, one major party in the United States is growing more and more radical. Republican lawmakers are warning that Democratic proposals to restructure the Supreme Court have moved from the party’s progressive fringe into its governing conversation, intensifying a long-running battle over the judiciary as the 2026 midterm elections approach.
The latest flashpoint came Tuesday, when the Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order allowing Alabama to use a Republican-backed congressional map that creates one majority-Black district rather than two. The ruling temporarily blocked a lower court decision that found the map intentionally discriminatory and cleared the way for Alabama to use the disputed lines in this year’s elections.
The decision could help Republicans regain a congressional seat in southern Alabama, adding to the stakes of a broader national redistricting fight that could determine control of the House.
Democrats and civil rights groups sharply condemned the ruling. California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused the “Trump-packed Supreme Court” of issuing an unsigned order “to help Republicans erase Black voters and keep a congressional seat.”
The Daily Caller writes that Republicans argue that Democratic frustration with recent decisions is now fueling a more consequential effort: changing the structure of the Court itself.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has called the Supreme Court a “disgrace” and said that “everything is on the table” if Democrats regain control of Congress. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has supported expanding the bench from nine to 13 justices, matching the number of federal appellate circuits.
Raskin has also introduced legislation that would alter the way the Supreme Court handles petitions and emergency orders. One proposal would shift the initial review of petitions seeking Supreme Court consideration to a rotating panel of 13 appellate judges. Another would require the Court to explain the legal basis for emergency orders issued through its so-called shadow docket.
Republican lawmakers say those proposals would weaken the Court’s independence and transform the judiciary into another battlefield for partisan control.
“Democrat proposals to pack the Supreme Court or impose term limits would be a naked abuse of power, a violation of an independent judiciary, and a far greater threat to constitutional government than any so-called ‘norms’ breaking they’ve whined about for the past decade,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told the Daily Caller.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, argued that Democrats are seeking to change the rules because they have failed to secure the outcomes they want from the courts.
“Our Democrat colleagues don’t want to keep losing cases in the courtroom, so they’ve adopted a new strategy: If you can’t win the game, change the rules, from packing the court with liberal justices to dictating recusal requirements,” Cornyn said. “Republicans will continue to fight to protect the integrity of America’s judicial system, and we will not allow Democrats to hijack the federal judiciary for their own partisan benefit.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., issued a similar warning.
“Democrats know they cannot always win under the Constitution, so they want to rewrite the rules of the Court. Packing the Supreme Court would destroy the independence of the judiciary, weaken the rule of law, and betray the American legal tradition. If Democrats get their way, the highest Court in the land would become another political weapon.”
The debate has been building for years.
In July 2024, President Joe Biden proposed 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, a binding ethics code, and a constitutional amendment limiting presidential immunity. Biden did not call for expanding the Court, but his proposal helped bring sweeping structural reform into the center of Democratic politics.
The demands have since grown more aggressive.
In August 2025, Democratic strategist James Carville argued that Democrats should consider adding Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states and expanding the Supreme Court if they regained unified control of the federal government.
“They are just going to have to unilaterally add Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states,” Carville said. “They may have to expand the [Supreme Court] to 13 members.”
James Carville: "If the Democrats win the presidency, the Senate, and the House in 2028… they are just going to have to unilaterally add Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states… If you want to save democracy…"pic.twitter.com/GquG3VCZeu
— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) August 7, 2025
Former Attorney General Eric Holder added his voice to the debate in November 2025, describing the Supreme Court as a “broken institution” and arguing that expansion should no longer be dismissed.
“Expanding the court is something I think that should be considered,” Holder said.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris moved the radical conversation further into the Democratic mainstream in May, when she called for an “expanded playbook” to counter Republican victories in elections, redistricting battles, and the courts.
“We need an expanded playbook… There is going to be some risk that we are going to have to assume along with that. But we need to brainstorm all ideas,” Harris said.
Harris identified a sweeping range of possible reforms, including changes to the Electoral College, Supreme Court expansion, enforceable ethics rules for justices, multimember congressional districts, and statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. She added that Democrats should remain within legal and ethical boundaries.
“We are never going to violate the law or do anything unethical or immoral,” Harris said.
The court debate is unfolding alongside a broader Democratic effort to resist President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda through litigation, political organizing, and institutional pressure. Former officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department have organized workshops and networks aimed at opposing administration policies, while legal groups staffed by veterans of Democratic administrations have coordinated lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive actions.
Republicans see those efforts as pieces of the same political strategy: using courts and institutional pressure to obstruct policies Democrats cannot defeat through elections or legislation. Democrats counter that structural reforms and legal challenges are necessary responses to a conservative Court they view as increasingly partisan and hostile to voting rights.
The dispute surfaced openly during a May House Judiciary Committee hearing on court packing. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, rejected the argument that the Supreme Court should be expanded because the country now has 13 appellate circuits.
“That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard,” Jordan said. “But that’s the argument Democrats are making, and it’s the argument their witnesses articulated.”
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) May 21, 2026
The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869, even as the federal judiciary has expanded and the number of appellate circuits has increased. Justices also no longer routinely travel to hear cases on regional circuits, as they did during the 19th century.
The Alabama redistricting case ensures that the fight will not remain an abstract institutional debate. The Court’s ruling could affect the balance of power in Congress, while Democratic calls for expansion and Republican warnings about court packing are increasingly becoming part of the campaign argument heading into November.
For Republicans, the question is whether Democrats are seeking reform or political control. For Democrats, the question is whether the current Court can retain legitimacy after a series of decisions they contend have weakened voting-rights protections.
Either way, the future of the Supreme Court is rapidly becoming one of the central issues of the midterm election.
[Read More: Republican Physically Attacked By Radical Liberal Activist]
