How states can pave a path toward congressional term limits

Tanner Willis - Special to the Mississippi Clarion Ledger

A proposed strategy suggests states could pass identical term limit laws to challenge a 1995 Supreme Court ruling.

• The Supreme Court case, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, currently prevents states from setting term limits for federal office.

• Coordinated state action could create pressure across federal circuits, potentially forcing the Supreme Court to revisit its precedent.

• Advocates suggest new term limits should apply prospectively, allowing current members of Congress to finish their careers.

For decades, Congress has been the land of the permanent incumbent. Polls show that nearly nine-in-0 Americans want term limits, yet every attempt to impose them has failed because Washington won’t limit itself, and the courts won’t let the states do it.

But there may still be a way forward. 

In 1995, Arkansas tried to limit how long its U.S. senators and representatives could serve. But in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that states can’t add qualifications for federal office beyond those in the Constitution — age, citizenship and residency. 

That decision shut the door on state-led reform. Even if 90% of a state’s voters demand congressional term limits tomorrow, such a law wouldn’t stand under current precedent. 

Amending the Constitution is politically impossible in today’s climate. But there is another way — getting the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in Thornton. 

Imagine Kentucky, Florida, Texas, Tennessee and others each passing identical laws establishing term limits for their members of Congress.

Each would face legal challenges and be struck down under Thornton, as expected. But with multiple states acting at once, the issue would surface across several federal circuits, creating pressure for the Supreme Court to revisit the precedent.

Such strategies have worked before. From Brown v. Board to Dobbs v. Jackson, landmark rulings often emerged when states passed laws that forced the court to reexamine old decisions. Term limits could follow the same path. 

If several states were to move together, it would send a clear message that voters want reform. The time has come to revisit whether lifelong incumbency is what the Founders intended. 

Under the Articles of Confederation, delegates were not permitted to serve more than three of any six years — a clear endorsement of rotation in office. The idea wasn’t about the number of years, but the principle that public service is temporary, not a career. 

If term limits are enacted today, fairness matters. The most responsible way to implement them would be prospectively. All current members would be grandfathered in, and everyone’s “term clock” would begin at zero.

This isn’t about punishing experience. It is about setting a new standard for the future. A clean-slate approach avoids endless lawsuits while honoring the service of long-tenured lawmakers. They can finish their careers under the old rules, while future members serve under the new: a limited number of terms, then home to private life — just as the Founders intended. 

If Congress won’t act and the people can’t amend the Constitution directly, the states still have one powerful tool: coordinated challenge. Passing identical laws isn’t rebellion — it is federalism working as designed. States were meant to test power, question precedent and reflect the will of their citizens.

If one state starts this movement, others will soon follow, each law would trigger its own court battle, moving through district and appellate courts until the Supreme Court was forced to face the question again: Can the people, through their states, impose term limits on their federal representatives?

Even if the Supreme Court reaffirms Thornton, the effort itself will spark a national conversation about accountability, public service and the concentration of political power. And if it reverses course, it will mark one of the most significant democratic reforms of our time.

Term limits won’t come from within Washington — they will come from outside, from the states that still believe public office is a temporary duty. The path forward is simple: Pass the laws, invite the challenge and let the court decide. 

Whether or not the justices overturn Thornton, the message will be unmistakable: The people are ready for a Congress that changes faces as often as it faces a government shutdown. The only question is whether the states have the courage to try. 

— Tanner Willis is a business operations analyst at Inclined Advanced Analytics based in Arlington, Virginia. He is a regular opinion writer on national and Kentucky politics and public issues and the author of “Smoke and Silence: The Lives of Ol’ Mort” (Jesse Stuart Foundation, 2025). This column was originally published by The Hill.