Rep. Jim Clyburn is now backing the Democratic push to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices, admitting he regrets ever supporting Clarence Thomas’s confirmation in 1991, a signal of how far the party’s leadership has shifted on the Court’s direction and legitimacy.
Appearing on NBC News’s Meet the Press, Clyburn declared, “I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand. And 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court.” This public endorsement puts Clyburn, a longtime Democratic leader from South Carolina, squarely in line with the party’s progressive wing and with figures like Kamala Harris, who have also floated a 13-justice court as a direct response to what they see as a conservative-dominated bench.
For Clyburn, the shift is personal as well as political. He told NBC News that defending Clarence Thomas during the now-legendary 1991 confirmation hearings is a decision he now regrets. “You know, I have made mistakes in my life, and that's one that I made, and I will own up to that mistake,” Clyburn said. “I had faith and confidence in the fact that his background and experiences would instruct him in his professionalism, especially sitting on the bench.” He added, “I thought that he would follow those court decisions that upheld the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act. I had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences.”
The idea of expanding the Supreme Court, often called “court packing”, has gained traction among Democrats frustrated by years of conservative rulings and the current makeup of the bench. Clyburn’s endorsement is the latest sign that the movement is no longer just a talking point for activists but is now championed by senior lawmakers. The Washington Examiner reported that Democratic leaders are increasingly framing court expansion as necessary “to counter the conservative majority,” while Clyburn himself has argued that Congress must act to keep the Court aligned with what he calls the “constitutional underpinnings” of the nation.
On Newsmax, Clyburn’s call for a 13-seat Court echoed previous Democratic proposals and highlighted the political hurdles involved. Expanding the Supreme Court would require new legislation to pass both houses of Congress and win the president’s signature, a process that has failed in the past and faces firm Republican opposition. Critics of the plan say it would set a destabilizing precedent and undermine the Court’s independence, concerns that have dogged every serious push for expansion since President Franklin Roosevelt’s failed effort in the 1930s.
Clyburn’s comments come as leading Democrats, including Kamala Harris, have made court expansion a central rallying cry for the party’s base. According to Breitbart, Clyburn described the Court as having “decided to reverse course and take this country back,” referencing recent decisions that depart from the era when the Court was seen as an engine for expanding civil rights. He pointed specifically to the Warren Court’s legacy on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, areas where the current majority has made moves he sees as regressive.
For years, Democrats have warned that the Court’s conservative majority would target key precedents on civil rights, voting, and the reach of federal power. The push to expand the bench is an attempt to counterbalance those moves, but it also marks a sharp departure from an earlier era when leaders like Clyburn and others defended Republican-appointed justices in the name of bipartisanship.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have only intensified the spotlight on the bench’s power. In high-stakes cases, such as the Court’s ruling on Trump’s mail-in voting executive order and its intervention in the White House ballroom construction dispute, the justices have played a decisive role in shaping national policy. These headline-making cases underscore just how consequential the Court’s makeup has become for both parties.
Clyburn’s public disavowal of his support for Clarence Thomas is as revealing as his push for court expansion. When Thomas was nominated in 1991, Clyburn said he believed the justice would honor the legacy of civil rights rulings. “I had faith and confidence in the fact that his background and experiences would instruct him in his professionalism,” Clyburn said, but he now accuses Thomas of having “rebelled” against those roots.
The admission comes as the Democratic Party’s relationship with the Supreme Court has grown far more combative. Disputes over rulings, on everything from mail-in voting to high-profile civil cases like the E. Jean Carroll verdict, have sharpened calls for wholesale change on the Court. The party’s left flank is now openly committed to reshaping the judiciary, and leaders like Clyburn are following their lead.
This leftward shift is evident not only in rhetoric but in the willingness to revisit past alliances and votes. As Democrats press for a larger bench, the language of regret and reversal, especially on figures like Thomas, serves to justify the new, more aggressive approach to remaking the Court.
While the Constitution does not fix the number of Supreme Court justices, the number has stood at nine since 1869. Any change would require Congress to pass new legislation, a move that would likely spark a bitter partisan fight. As recent Supreme Court interventions have shown, even procedural decisions can have far-reaching political consequences.
Republican lawmakers and many legal scholars warn that expanding the Court to 13 seats would amount to judicial “packing” and could erode the institution’s credibility. Previous efforts to add seats, most notably by FDR, failed under bipartisan criticism. Supporters like Clyburn, however, insist that the current Court’s direction justifies extraordinary action, a stance that speaks to the deepening polarization around the judiciary.
The next moves will depend on Democratic leaders’ willingness to spend political capital, and on whether the party’s rank and file are ready to make court expansion a top legislative priority. With the Supreme Court already at the center of major political battles, including the fallout from lower court decisions following Supreme Court rulings, the stakes could hardly be higher for both sides.
Clyburn’s reversal and court-packing push tell a simple story: when progressives lose at the ballot box or in the courts, they move the goalposts and demand new rules that tilt the field their way.
