In recent years, the push to expand the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, commonly referred to as “court packing,” gained momentum among several progressive advocacy groups. This movement, which saw renewed interest starting in 2020, was most notably championed by a coalition called Just Majority, made up of over 40 organizations. Their main goal was to build support for the Judiciary Act—a legislative proposal that would have increased the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to thirteen.
Just Majority and its partners initially framed court packing as “court expansion,” presenting it as a necessary and nonpartisan update for modern governance. However, since late 2024, public advocacy around this idea has noticeably declined.
Alliance for Justice (AFJ), an early proponent of court expansion and a key player in left-leaning judicial strategy, had previously endorsed adding justices through statements like one from former president Nan Aron: “Expanding the number of justices and seizing the opportunity to nominate diverse, forward-thinking jurists will democratize the highest court in the land so that it can properly uphold the rights of all Americans.” Aron also argued that many current justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.
Despite AFJ’s strong stance in earlier years—arguing both practical and political reasons for expansion—the group has recently shifted focus. Current materials no longer prioritize or even mention court expansion or related reforms. While some references remain on their website, links to further information about court expansion have been removed.
The American Constitution Society (ACS), another member of Just Majority and self-described as “the nation’s foremost progressive legal organization,” also played a prominent role in promoting Supreme Court reform. ACS openly discussed court packing at events as early as 2019 but hesitated to endorse it outright until January 2021. Former ACS president Russ Feingold later declared that “Reform includes adding seats to rectify the Right’s packing.” The organization continued advocating for expansion into mid-2024 but became silent after President Biden withdrew from his reelection campaign and polling showed only limited public support for expanding the Court.
Similarly, Free Speech for People joined late but vocally supported increasing the number of justices through its SCOTUS Reform Now campaign launched in April 2024. Initially focused on court packing, their messaging shifted toward term limits after President Biden’s withdrawal from his campaign and changing political circumstances. By April 2025, explicit calls for expanding the Court had disappeared from their materials.
Demand Justice (DJ), which operated under Arabella Advisors before becoming independent, was among the most persistent voices supporting court packing since 2018. DJ’s website still hosts an “#ExpandTheCourt” page stating: “Adding four seats is the only way to restore balance to the Court immediately.” However, access points to this content have been quietly removed from its homepage since June 2024. Social media activity around “expand the court” also dropped sharply after May 2024.
Some speculate these shifts are linked to changes within Democratic Party leadership or internal polling showing low public support for such measures during election season.
Other groups such as Demos—whose staff published documents supporting alignment between circuit courts and Supreme Court seats—and organizations like League of Conservation Voters (LCV), End Citizens United, Center for Popular Democracy, Take Back The Court Action Fund, and Women’s March all reduced or ceased public discussion about expanding the Supreme Court following developments in late 2024 and early 2025.
This pattern suggests coordinated silence among progressive nonprofits once seen at the forefront of advocating major changes to America’s highest judicial body. Whether this reflects temporary strategic retreat or a lasting shift remains unclear; however, observers note that such policy reversals often align with changes in political opportunity rather than shifts in core beliefs.
