Back to bill
HJRES 1 - 119

Introduced in House

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.

1
Sections
0
Dollar amounts
0
Deadlines and effective dates
Jan 3, 2025
Text version date

Official source

Official PDF

Preview the source PDF from the official text formats without leaving this page, or open the original file in a new tab.

Open official PDF

Structured text

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H.J. Res. 1 Introduced in House (IH)] 119th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 1 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2025 Mr. Biggs of Arizona submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: ``Article-- ``The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.''.
Cached official text analysis. This viewer uses cached official bill text and deterministic section, phrase, fiscal, agency, deadline, and statutory-reference extraction. The analysis is navigation support, not a legal interpretation; consult the official text for authoritative wording.