Grassley Sounds the Alarm on Democrats’ Intentions to Pack the Supreme Court

Prepared Floor Remarks by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
"Democrats' Threat to Judicial Independence"
Tuesday, June 9, 2026

VIDEO

I want to address recent threats to the Supreme Court made by Democratic members of Congress.

Last week, a major newspaper published a piece with a simple title: "Democrats Promise to Wreck the Supreme Court."

That title isn't hyperbole. It's a fact.

Today, I want to tell the American people what's really going on.

Because what House Democrats are proposing to do to the Supreme Court isn't reform. It's a power grab disguised as institutional concern.

Let's start with the facts.

House Democratic leadership has called the Supreme Court a "disgrace" and said that if Democrats take back Congress in November, "everything is on the table."

Why?

Because House Democrats don't like the way this Court rules. Plain and simple.

And for those asking what House Democrats mean by "everything being on the table?"

Well, they've told us.

They're calling for four new justices to be added to the Supreme Court.

In other words, they want to pack the Court by adding new activist justices who will rule the way that they want, not the way the Constitution commands.

That's not oversight. That's not reform.

That's a direct threat to judicial independence.

House Democrats aren't alone either.

Democrats in Virginia recently threatened to pack their state supreme court to circumvent a ruling they didn't like.

And Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party's 2024 presidential nominee, recently floated the idea of Democrats packing the Supreme Court as part of a "no bad idea brainstorm."

House Democrats have said that four new justices are needed - expanding the Court from nine to 13 - because the number of justices should match the number of federal appellate circuits.

That might make sense if the Supreme Court hadn't operated with nine Justices since 1869 - for over 150 years!

And it also might make sense if we hadn't had 10 federal circuits since all the way back in 1929 - nearly 100 years ago!

Additional circuits haven't been a reason to add justices for nearly a century. It still isn't today.

The proposed rationale given by House Democrats is a diversion.

Their objective is clear.

They want to add new justices to the Supreme Court and appoint them under a Democratic president.

Why? Because four new justices are the exact amount they think they need to secure a liberal majority on the Court.

And what makes House Democrats' objective even more clear is their timing.

Are they asking for these new justices to be added now?

Of course not.

If they were added now, President Trump would appoint them.

The fact that House Democrats aren't calling for new justices today, tells you everything you need to know about their motive.

Perhaps House Democrats need a history lesson.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937.

That attempt failed in a Democratic controlled Congress.

Yet, here we are, nearly a century later, and Democrats are trying to pack the Court again.

House Democrats knew that court packing was a bad idea in 1937; they seem to have forgotten that wisdom in 2026.

The American people have the right to know the truth behind all of this.

House Democrats aren't upset about judicial ethics or institutional integrity.

They're upset because the Supreme Court is doing its job - applying the Constitution as written rather than applying it as House Democrats wish it was written.

They want a Supreme Court that'll deliver the outcomes that they want, not the outcomes the Constitution commands.

And since House Democrats can't get their preferred outcomes through the democratic process, they want to rig the Supreme Court to ensure they never lose.

That's not how our democracy works.

When it comes to House Democrats' lack of concern with actual judicial oversight, there's a real-world example that proves my point.

Right now, there's a sitting federal judge embroiled in a genuine scandal.

An official judicial investigation found that this judge carried on a years-long extramarital affair, which included intimate encounters in her judicial chambers during work hours and within earshot of her law clerks.

When investigators, including the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit, questioned her, she lied about it!

And if that wasn't enough, the investigation also uncovered that the judge attended a partisan political event in violation of judicial conduct rules.

What was the result?

A private reprimand. A slap on the wrist.

She remains on the bench.

This federal judge is an example of actual misconduct - documented, investigated and confirmed by her own judicial colleagues.

Where's the outrage from House Democrats?

I certainly haven't heard any.

While House Democrats hold themselves out as caring about judicial oversight - in hearings, floor speeches and press releases - they're silent when a real, bona fide scandal is right under their noses.

To House Democrats, judicial oversight looks like a one-way street.

When they're unhappy with the Supreme Court's rulings, they're willing to blow up the entire institution and rig the Court to achieve their preferred outcomes.

When a district judge conducts a years-long affair in her chambers, lies to investigators and violates the judicial canons, they don't say a word.

That's not judicial oversight. That's politics.

The Supreme Court is doing its job.

It doesn't answer to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

It answers to the Constitution.

The American people know that, and House Democrats should learn it.

If House Democrats want to talk about judicial oversight, they should focus on a real scandal, like the one happening right now in Georgia, instead of fabricating reasons to pack the Court.

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Post