The House on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, failed to pass a Republican-backed constitutional amendment that would permanently fix the Supreme Court at nine justices. On the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.J. Res. 1, the chamber voted 212 yeas to 206 nays, with 15 not voting — short of the two-thirds supermajority required under suspension, according to the House Clerk (Roll Call 293).

The vote locked in at about 4:34 p.m. ET. Republicans voted 211-0 for the measure (seven not voting). Democrats voted 1-205 (eight not voting). The lone independent voted no. The one Democratic yea was Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, per the Clerk's member roll.

Speaker Mike Johnson brought the joint resolution to the floor under suspension of the rules — a path that skips a normal rule and demands a two-thirds vote in the House. Even a successful House vote would have been only the first hurdle. Article V still requires two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by 38 states before the Constitution itself would change.

H.J. Res. 1, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) in January 2025 and reported by the House Judiciary Committee in 2026, proposes a short amendment: the Supreme Court shall be composed of nine justices — one chief justice and eight associate justices. Court size is set today by statute, which Congress can rewrite with ordinary majorities. Writing "nine" into the Constitution would raise the bar for future packing or shrinking schemes to the full amendment process.

That is the real fight underneath the message vote. Court packing is a power play: expand the bench when you dislike the current majority, shrink or freeze it when you like it. Locking the number in the Constitution would constrain both parties — which is why a partisan House could not clear two-thirds. Suspension theater still forces every member onto the record about whether the judiciary's size should be a constitutional hard stop or a simple-majority bargaining chip.

The amendment is not law. It did not clear the House. It does not go to the states. What Wednesday produced is a roll call: 212 lawmakers willing to constitutionalize nine seats, 206 unwilling under the two-thirds bar, and a reminder that concentrated power over the courts remains contested politics, not settled charter text.

Sources