How states can pave a path toward congressional term limits
For decades, Washington has operated like a gated community — guarded by incumbency, insulated from accountability. Nearly nine in ten Americans support term limits for Congress, yet no reform has ever broken through. Congress won’t restrain itself, and the courts have long blocked states from doing so. But there may now be a new path forward — one paved by the states themselves.
In 1995, the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton ruled that states cannot impose additional qualifications for members of Congress beyond those listed in the Constitution — age, citizenship, and residency. That ruling effectively closed the door on any single state imposing term limits. Even if every voter in a state demanded it, the law would not stand.
But Thornton was decided by a different Court in a different era. And the Constitution leaves room for the kind of creative federalism that has reshaped precedent before. From Brown v. Board of Education to Dobbs v. Jackson, national change has often begun when multiple states acted together, challenging an outdated interpretation of the law.
Imagine a coordinated effort in which a handful of states — say Florida, Texas, Kentucky, and Tennessee — each passed identical term-limit laws for their federal delegations. Every one of those laws would almost certainly be challenged and struck down under Thornton. Yet with cases arising across several circuits, the Supreme Court would be compelled to revisit the question: can the people, through their states, impose limits on congressional tenure?
This strategy is not defiance — it’s federalism functioning as designed. The states were meant to be laboratories of democracy, testing the limits of power and reflecting the will of the people. When Washington refuses to act, the states can.
The Founders themselves believed in rotation in office. Under the Articles of Confederation, delegates could serve only three out of every six years — not to punish experience, but to preserve humility. Public service, they believed, should be a season, not a career.
Modern term limits should embrace that same spirit of fairness and renewal. The most responsible approach would apply prospectively — grandfathering in current members and starting everyone’s “term clock” at zero. That approach avoids legal gridlock while honoring past service and setting a clear standard for the future: a limited number of terms, followed by a return to private life.
Critics argue that change like this is politically impossible. Yet impossibility is often where reform begins. A coordinated state challenge would ignite a national debate about accountability, power, and the meaning of representation itself. Even if the Court reaffirms Thornton, the movement will have achieved something vital: forcing Congress — and the country — to confront how far we’ve drifted from the idea of citizen leadership.
The path to congressional term limits won’t begin inside Washington. It will begin in the states that still believe in self-government — states willing to legislate, to challenge, and to lead.
The formula is simple: Pass the laws. Invite the challenge. Let the Court decide.
Whether the justices uphold or overturn precedent, the message will be the same — Americans are ready for a Congress that changes faces as often as it faces a government shutdown. The only question left is whether the states have the courage to light the way.
