Expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court would increase public confidence in the judiciary

What's this about?

People disagree about whether adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court would make people trust it more.

The facts do not show a clear gain across the whole country.

What supporters say

• A larger Court could look more like the views of people across the country.
• Adding seats could show that leaders heard worries about trust, fairness, and judge conduct.

What critics say

• Many people could see expansion as a party trying to control the Court.
• Strong party feelings could make gains in trust cancel out across the country.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more.

The bottom line

Expansion might calm some people, especially with strong rules for judge conduct.

But it could also look like a party power move, so the facts show no clear rise in trust.

The claim is that adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court would increase public confidence in the judiciary. The evidence does not show a clear national benefit: expansion could reassure some people, but it could also be seen as partisan manipulation.

The case for

Supporters of expansion argue that a larger Court could appear more representative of the country’s political and ideological views. Survey research has repeatedly found sharp partisan differences in how Americans judge the Court, especially after controversial decisions. That pattern suggests that people who see the current Court as politically unbalanced might become more confident if its membership appeared more representative. But the surveys do not directly test whether adding justices would produce that result. 1

Expansion could also signal that the government is responding to concerns about the Court’s legitimacy. Research has linked worries about financial conflicts, ethics, accountability and judicial integrity to lower trust in institutions. Other analyses point to confirmation battles, political polarization and decisions viewed as out of step with majority preferences as possible sources of declining confidence.

That makes a reform package potentially reassuring to some Americans, particularly if adding seats were combined with credible ethics and accountability safeguards. In that circumstance, supporters say, expansion might look less like a change in numbers and more like an effort to address broader concerns about the Court’s conduct and representativeness. 2

The fact that Congress has historically been able to change the Court’s size leaves room for this argument, but it shows only that expansion is legally and institutionally possible. It does not establish that the public would respond with greater confidence.

The case against

The strongest concern is that an increase in seats could be viewed as partisan court-packing. If one political coalition enacted the change to secure a preferred majority, many Americans might see the reform as an attack on the Court’s independence rather than a legitimate correction. Research on institutional legitimacy stresses the importance of procedural fairness, political norms and public symbols—not only the results institutions produce. 3

The experience of President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 court-packing plan offers a warning. Historical studies show that changing the Court’s composition can become a major public fight over legitimacy. The episode is not a direct prediction of what would happen today: its political setting, media environment and available measures of public opinion were different. Still, it suggests that the way expansion is presented and understood could matter as much as the reform itself.

Partisan reactions could also cancel out any broader gains. Expansion might increase confidence among its supporters while reducing it among opponents, leaving national confidence unchanged or even lower. Current polling already shows that views of the Court vary by party and can shift sharply after major rulings. 4

More broadly, the available research does not show that the Court’s size alone determines public trust. Long-term studies find substantial support for the Court across roughly a century, while legitimacy research emphasizes ethical behavior, fair procedures, institutional norms and perceived responsiveness. None of these sources isolates the effect of adding seats.

The bottom line

The evidence does not establish that expanding the Supreme Court would increase public confidence. The balance is best described as even, with moderate confidence in that assessment.

The case for expansion is plausible but conditional. It could raise confidence among groups that view the current Court as unrepresentative, especially if it were designed and presented as a fair response to concerns about ethics, accountability and representation. But the evidence against a clear national increase is stronger on the central question: a seat increase could also be interpreted as partisan manipulation and damage procedural legitimacy.

The decisive uncertainty is how the public would interpret the reform’s political purpose. The available evidence comes mainly from polling, legitimacy research, institutional analysis and historical analogy; none directly measures what would happen to national confidence after a modern Court expansion. The likely effect depends less on the number of justices alone than on the reform’s design, its political sponsors, accompanying safeguards and whether the public sees it as a fair institutional change or a partisan intervention.