Johns Hopkins hosts wide-ranging debate on Supreme Court's future

Four notable guests from across the political spectrum shared the stage at the Hopkins Bloomberg Center in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday evening to discuss the future of the Supreme Court and possible reforms.

The event was the first in a new debate series called the Hopkins Forum, a partnership between the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University and Open to Debate, a leading nonpartisan media platform dedicated to fostering friendly dialogue across differences.

Despite its standing atop the nation's judicial branch and a reputation of impartiality, the Supreme Court has increasingly garnered skepticism from Americans concerned about ethics violations and partisanship. According to a 2023 Gallup poll referenced during the debate, only 41% of American adults approved of the court's job performance, a staggeringly low figure that highlights how entrenched political polarization has become in recent years.

The Hopkins Forum aims to break down those barriers, said Johns Hopkins alum Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies, in an introductory video.

"The Hopkins Forum is a place where leaders with a diverse range of views and ideas, whether they are scholars, elected officials, business leaders, or anyone else, can come together to discuss the pressing issues facing our country and the world in an era of echo chambers, partisan bubbles, and cancel culture," Bloomberg said. "We hope the forum, like this center, will help foster the kind of open-minded discourse and civil debate at our cornerstones of democracy."

The debate featured a panel of notable participants: Jeff Flake, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Jamal Greene, professor of law at Columbia Law School and prominent Supreme Court commentator; Cristina Rodriguez, co-chair of President Joe Biden's Supreme Court Commission; and Jeff Sessions, former U.S. attorney general and senator. John Donvan, moderator-in-chief of Open to Debate since 2008, moderated the discussion.

Their conversation centered around three questions: Should justices be term limited? Should Congress expand the Supreme Court? Should external ethics codes apply to the court?

Debaters answered with a yes or no, then had 90 seconds to defend their answers, followed by a more in-depth discussion. The evening ended with questions from the capacity crowd, which included students, journalists, policymakers, and members of the public.

Despite disagreeing on many points, the debaters' opinions seemed driven by the same end goal: creating a court free of political influence and biases.

Image caption: From left, Jeff Flake, Cristina Rodriguez, Jamal Greene, and Jeff Sessions

Image credit: Will Kirk / Johns Hopkins University

When explaining her support of 18-year terms for justices, Rodriguez said, "The reality is that since the 1980s, if not since the 1960s, our nominations process has become hyperpoliticized. By ensuring that each president gets two nominations, there's a chance that the hyperpoliticization might dissipate. And one of the virtues of term limits is that it is not about balancing the court in an ideological way. It's about tying the composition of the court to what happens in the electoral process, whoever wins the election."

Flake disagreed, arguing such term limits would further politicize the court. "If we're looking to depoliticize the court with the leading proposals, one president in [two terms] could appoint 44% of the court or would appoint 44% of the court, four justices out of nine."

A question from the audience about whether controversial cases—such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization—should require unanimous consent in order to be settled further united the debaters across partisan lines.

Greene was emphatically against the idea, saying, "I think that part of the court's core function is settlement of difficult constitutional questions. I don't think constitutional questions are difficult because some people are corrupt or wrong; they're difficult because constitutional law is difficult … and we are a diverse, pluralistic country that's going to disagree about these core questions. So I think that unanimity on difficult questions requiring settlement that different courts of appeals disagree about is simply too high a bar and I think wouldn't be especially productive."

Sessions immediately jumped in to concur. "I think it'd be too restrictive on precedent," he said.

Hahrie Han, inaugural director of the SNF Agora Institute, said she considered the event a success.

"The debate provided an excellent example of the importance of reasoned, civil dialogue on central questions in American politics," she said. "We were thrilled that each of the speakers articulated thoughtful arguments about possible reforms to the Supreme Court and enabled such robust but nuanced discussion for the community."

The next installment in the Hopkins Forum debate series will take place in Baltimore in the spring. The series will produce a total of eight debates over the course of two years, with sites alternating between the Hopkins Bloomberg Center and Baltimore.