Rep. James Clyburn is now calling for Congress to expand the Supreme Court from nine to thirteen justices, a move that breaks with his past support for Justice Clarence Thomas and has drawn fire from opponents who see it as court-packing.
On Sunday, Rep. James Clyburn, a longtime Democratic leader from South Carolina, publicly endorsed adding four seats to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress must act to restore what he described as balance and justice. Clyburn’s comments come as the left intensifies pressure to change the structure of the Court after several high-profile conservative rulings. He told “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker, “Yes, I do,” when asked if he supports expanding the Court, then added, “I think we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand, and 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen, it would be a good number to have on the court.”
Clyburn framed his push as a response to what he called the Court’s reversal of civil rights progress, invoking the infamous words of Justice Roger Taney’s Dred Scott decision: “No Black man has any right that white man must respect.” He accused the current Court of “decid[ing] to reverse course and take this country back to those rulings of Justice Taney.” He also criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, whom he once backed, saying, “I had hoped that Clarence Thomas would follow the modern underpinnings of that Constitution of ours, but he has not done so. In fact, he decided to go all the way from an angry leftist to a very angry rightist.” Clyburn went further, stating, “I had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel, the way he has, against his own background and experiences.”
His call for expansion aligns with a growing chorus among national Democrats. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, in a 2021 Boston Globe op-ed, declared, “I did not come to this conclusion lightly,” warning that the “current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.” Sen. Ed Markey has also pushed for expansion through legislation, though these efforts have so far failed in Congress. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has voiced support for the idea, and after President Joe Biden’s failed 2024 reelection bid, he called for term limits, a code of ethics, and a constitutional amendment in response to the justices’ recent presidential-immunity decision.
Clyburn’s present stance marks a sharp break from his past. He was once a key supporter of Clarence Thomas’s confirmation in 1991, even calling Thomas “my good friend.” Now, Clyburn says he “absolutely” does not stand by that earlier support. In an interview noted by Newsmax, Clyburn said he believed Thomas would uphold civil rights laws but now regards his record as a disappointment. The Washington Examiner reported that Clyburn described his support for Thomas’s confirmation as a mistake, saying Thomas had moved away from the principles Clyburn expected him to uphold.
As Clyburn pivots to support court expansion, he joins the progressive wing’s battle cry. The Hill details how Clyburn invoked the need for “significant actions taken by the Congress,” and used the phrase “baker’s dozen” to describe his preferred number of justices. According to Breitbart, Clyburn argued that the Court has reversed course on interpretations of key constitutional amendments.
While Clyburn and other Democrats frame the expansion as necessary to protect civil rights and democracy, Republican leaders have condemned such efforts as a partisan power grab. The Hill notes that Republican officials have accused Democrats of attempting to “pack the court.” The composition of the Supreme Court has stood at nine justices since 1869, and efforts to add seats have long been viewed as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and tilt the Court’s ideology.
The push for expansion has so far failed to gain traction in Congress. Sen. Ed Markey’s legislative attempts have not advanced. Despite public pressure from figures like Warren, Harris, and now Clyburn, the political cost of such a move remains high. For many Americans, the idea of expanding the Supreme Court conjures memories of past failed attempts, most notably Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 plan, which was broadly rejected as a threat to the Court’s legitimacy.
Even among Democrats, there are divisions. While the party’s progressive wing presses for radical structural changes, moderates and some legal scholars warn that such moves could set off a cycle of escalation, with each party adding seats whenever it holds power. Republicans, for their part, see the new campaign as a transparent effort to dilute the current Court’s conservative majority and undermine the separation of powers.
Clyburn’s remarks are more than just rhetoric, they signal a willingness among Democratic leaders to upend long-established American constitutional norms in pursuit of short-term political advantage. The Court’s independence has served as a check on both parties’ ambitions, and the nine-justice structure has survived challenges for over 150 years. Now, leading Democrats are openly arguing that Congress should change the rules simply because they dislike recent rulings or the current balance of the Court.
If Democrats succeed in expanding the Supreme Court, they will have set a precedent that any future majority can use to further inflate or manipulate the Court’s composition. The incentives are clear: once the door opens to court-packing, there is little to stop either party from continuing the cycle, eroding the Court’s credibility and undermining the very foundations Clyburn and his allies claim to defend.
For all the heated talk about “protecting democracy,” this is a fight about power, and about whether politicians will respect the guardrails that keep our system from devolving into a partisan free-for-all. The American people, not just Congress, will have to decide whether they want to see the Supreme Court turned into yet another political prize.
America’s constitutional order was never meant to be remade at the whim of whichever party happens to be in charge, and voters have every right to demand their leaders show more respect for the institutions that stand between us and one-party rule.