Term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices would not reduce judicial independence and could enhance accountability, according to Barbara J. Pariente, former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court.
In an opinion piece for the Brennan Center for Justice published on Tuesday, Pariente wrote that lifetime appointments may lead to a lack of accountability, as they were initially intended by the country’s founders to ensure independence when life expectancy was much lower.
She says that Florida’s system, which includes mandatory retirement ages, regular retention votes, judicial conduct codes, financial disclosure requirements and possible disciplinary actions, contributes to judicial independence.
Pariente believes that such mechanisms are more effective in maintaining impartiality than lifetime appointments without genuine accountability.
AFP/Getty Images
“I take great pride in my judicial career and the hundreds of opinions I authored. I always understood my role was to render fair decisions uninfluenced by popular opinion or political pressure,” she wrote for the Brennan Center. “I spoke extensively to student groups and civic groups on the importance of judicial independence—that judges were not ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or pro-death penalty or anti-death penalty but, rather, take an oath to be impartial.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, facing mounting pressure over accusations of ethics violations, primarily aimed at Justice Clarence Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito, issued its first formal code of conduct in November 2023. The code, however, was immediately met with criticism for lacking any concrete means of enforcement, leaving many to question its practical influence on the justices’ behavior.
In a move addressing ongoing concerns about judicial integrity, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan reaffirmed her stance on the need for a robust enforcement mechanism for the High Court’s recently adopted ethics code.
Speaking last month at New York University School of Law, Kagan outlined her vision for strengthening the code’s implementation, pushing back against critics who claim such measures would be ineffective.
Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal minority, has been at the forefront of calls for reform. Her proposal involves creation of a panel of lower court judges appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts. This panel would be tasked with handling allegations leveled against the justices, effectively serving as a filter to separate legitimate concerns from baseless accusations.
Newsweek has emailed the Supreme Court’s public information office for comment Tuesday afternoon.
Pariente says that the essence of the judicial system is to render decisions based on law and facts, not public or political influence, and this independence can be preserved without lifetime appointments through structured term limits and accountability measures.
In the opinion contribution, the former Florida jurist highlighted several controversial cases that she authored during her 20-year tenure, including one stemming from the 2000 presidential race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.
Pariente said that she faced “public pressure” from Democratic voters to rule in favor of Gore’s legal team in the case involving Palm Beach County’s so-called “butterfly ballot.”
The evidence of the confusion was that numerous Democratic voters in Democratic strongholds inadvertently cast their ballots for third-party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Gore, thereby providing an unintended advantage to Bush. The proposed solution was to permit a new vote in Palm Beach County, which Pariente ruled against.
“I was a Palm Beach County resident and had voted by absentee ballot. Despite the fact that there was a great deal of public pressure—especially from the voters in my home county to decide this case favorably for Gore—I was convinced that the law did not provide a basis for a revote,” Pariente wrote.
A month of intense legal disputes culminated in a contentious 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, which halted a Florida recount. Bush secured Florida by a mere 537 votes, equivalent to a margin of 0.009 percent, and won 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 270.
After today’s Supreme Court handed down several controversial rulings and with some justices being accused of unethical behavior, President Joe Biden’s administration unveiled a three-part reform plan on July 29 that would check the court’s powers.
The plan would create a constitutional amendment ensuring former presidents are not immune from crimes committed while in office; establish a single 18-year term limit for justices, who at the moment are allowed to serve on the nation’s highest court until retirement or death; and create a binding, enforceable code of conduct that would require justices to disclose gifts, not publicly participate in political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have a conflict of interest.
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, supports Biden’s reform plan.
“In the course of our nation’s history, trust in the Supreme Court of the United States has been critical to achieving equal justice under law,” Harris said in a statement on July 29. “Yet today, there is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court as its fairness has been called into question after numerous ethics scandals and decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent.”
