Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would bar anyone who is not a natural born citizen from serving as a federal judge. For it to become part of the Constitution, Congress must first approve it (by the required supermajority) and then three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify it within seven years. If that happens, the new rule would take effect six months after ratification. Until those steps are completed, the proposal has no legal force.
Constitutional amendments must be approved by the required supermajority in both the House and Senate and are not sent to the President; this resolution sets a seven-year deadline for state legislatures to ratify and a six-month delay before the amendment takes effect after ratification.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting any person who is not a "natural born citizen" from serving as a judge on the Supreme Court or any inferior federal courts.
The amendment overrides Article III and would take effect six months after ratification.
Ratification must occur within seven years of submission to the states.
Constitutional amendments with narrow, controversial eligibility rules rarely secure the necessary supermajorities and state ratification.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly framed constitutional amendment that clearly articulates the core prohibition and timing but omits several implementation-critical details (definitions, transition for sitting judges, enforcement and adjudication mechanisms) that would be expected given the significance of altering federal judicial eligibility.
Progressives emphasize discrimination and lost diversity.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize discrimination and lost diversity.
Likely to oppose the amendment as discriminatory and harmful to judicial diversity and independence.
Sees it as an unnecessary restriction that would exclude qualified naturalized judges and send an anti-immigrant signal.
Will approach the amendment cautiously and pragmatically.
Concerned about narrowing the candidate pool, constitutional precedent, and unintended consequences for court functioning.
Many conservatives would view this as a principled move to ensure judges have birthright allegiance; some pragmatists may worry about cost and disruption.
Overall, it aligns with emphasis on national citizenship requirements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments with narrow, controversial eligibility rules rarely secure the necessary supermajorities and state ratification.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize discrimination and lost diversity.
Constitutional amendments with narrow, controversial eligibility rules rarely secure the necessary supermajorities and state ratification.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly framed constitutional amendment that clearly articulates the core prohibition and timing but omits several implementation-critical details (definitions,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.