PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.145 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.145 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.145 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.145 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-01-30 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposed constitutional amendment would give Supreme Court and lower federal court judges 20-year terms, subject to good behavior. A judge who completed such a term could not be reappointed to the same court. It would apply only to appointments made on or after ratification, which would require approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Each judge of the Supreme Court and each inferior court shall be appointed to serve during good behavior for a term of 20 years.
No person who has served a term of 20 years as a judge of the Supreme Court or an inferior court shall be eligible for reappointment as a judge in the court in which such term was served.
This article shall only apply to an appointment occurring on or after the date of the ratification of this article.
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
The resolution proposes a constitutional amendment, rather than an ordinary statute. Its text makes approval by three-fourths of state legislatures the condition for becoming part of the Constitution.
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
Section 1 would require 20-year appointments for Supreme Court and lower federal court judges. Service would remain subject to the stated good-behavior condition.
1. Each judge of the Supreme Court and each inferior court shall be appointed to serve during good behavior for a term of 20 years.
Section 2 would bar a person who served a 20-year judicial term from reappointment to that same court. The restriction is tied to the court where that term was served; it does not expressly prohibit appointment to a different court.
2. No person who has served a term of 20 years as a judge of the Supreme Court or an inferior court shall be eligible for reappointment as a judge in the court in which such term was served.
Section 3 would apply the amendment only to appointments occurring on or after ratification. Appointments made before that date would fall outside its stated scope.
3. This article shall only apply to an appointment occurring on or after the date of the ratification of this article.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated February 2, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on January 30, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-02-02T14:42:28Z. 2026-01-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-01-30: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-01-30. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Feb 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI