HOW IT WORKS
The short version
The Supreme Court would be larger, cases would be decided by rotating panels, and major precedent would change only with broad agreement.
A Larger Court
More justices, with shared responsibility — added gradually.
Different Panels Hear Different Cases
Justices rotate. No fixed group decides everything.
Stable Precedent
Overruling precedent requires supermajorities.
That's the whole idea.
Everything below explains how that works — and why it matters.
WHAT CHANGES — AND WHAT DOESN'T
What changes
- The Court has more justices overall
- Not every justice hears every case
- Cases are decided by randomly assigned panels
- Appointments happen on a regular schedule
- No block of justices can reliably dominate outcomes across cases
What stays the same
- Justices still have life tenure
- There is still one Supreme Court
- Decisions are final and binding nationwide
- The Constitution is unchanged
This reform changes how power is distributed, not who holds office.
HOW ROTATING PANELS WORK
For each case
- A small group of justices is randomly selected
- That panel hears the case and issues a decision
- Different cases get different panels
Over time
- Every justice participates
- No fixed group controls outcomes
- The Court's work reflects the judgment of the whole bench, not a permanent nine
- This structure can make it easier to handle a larger docket without overburdening any one justice
This is how most courts already operate.
The Supreme Court is the outlier.
WHY ROTATION MATTERS
A fixed Court concentrates power in a small, stable majority — often for decades or longer.
That means
- Retirements and deaths become political crises
- One confirmation can reshape the law for a generation
- Every disagreement risks escalating into a fight for total control
Rotation changes the stakes
- Influence is shared across cases
- Change is gradual and cumulative
- No single appointment—or moment in time—locks in outcomes
Rotation doesn't make decisions less serious.
It makes the system more stable.
WHAT ABOUT MAJOR PRECEDENT?
Most cases don't overrule precedent. They apply it.
Under rotating panels, no single majority controls how a doctrine is applied across future cases.
That changes what precedent can do.
- Aggressive precedents are harder to expand. Narrow or extreme readings don't reliably carry forward when different panels apply them.
- Distinguishing matters again. Panels can apply precedent cautiously without being pulled in one ideological direction.
Formal overruling is treated differently.
It requires a larger panel and a supermajority — making reversals rarer, slower, and more legitimate.
The result: law evolves through accumulation, not whiplash.
WHY THIS CAN’T BE USED TO PACK THE COURT
Court packing works only when adding seats lets one side reliably control outcomes. This reform removes that possibility.
Under rotating panels, no one controls which justices decide which cases. Even a much larger Court can’t be captured at once — or steered toward predictable results over time.
Appointments are regular and rule-governed, change is gradual, panels rotate randomly, and precedent is harder to overturn. Even aligned majorities can’t quickly flip settled law; they can only distinguish it.
Deliberate attempts to pack the Court fail under this structure — because control can’t be centralized.
WHY WE ALREADY TRUST THIS APPROACH ELSEWHERE
We already rely on rotation to protect fairness:
- Juries are randomly selected
- Judges don't choose their cases
- Appellate courts decide cases in panels
Not because randomness is perfect —
but because distribution prevents capture.
At the very top of the system, we abandoned that principle.
THE RESULT
A rotating Supreme Court doesn't guarantee outcomes anyone likes.
It guarantees something more important:
- less volatility
- lower stakes
- greater legitimacy
- decisions shaped by shared judgment, not chance timing
That's what a stable constitutional court looks like.
Rotate the Court.
Reduce the stakes.
Restore legitimacy.
Does this make sense?
Quick check — it helps us tell if the idea is landing.