Can Congress Overrule the Supreme Court: Amendments and Statutes

Congress cannot directly overrule the Supreme Court when the Court has interpreted the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment or a later decision by the Court itself can undo that kind of ruling. But Congress is not powerless. It can rewrite federal statutes the Court has misread, propose amendments, adjust the Court’s jurisdiction and size, control who joins the bench, and hold the purse strings on the entire judicial branch.

Why Constitutional Rulings Are Different

Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has held the power of judicial review — the authority to strike down federal laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution.1Legal Information Institute. Marbury v. Madison (1803) When the Court decides that a statute violates the Constitution, no lower court can disagree, and Congress cannot flip the result by passing another ordinary law. The Court has repeatedly said only it can overrule its own constitutional precedents.2Congress.gov. Methodology for the Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions

That sounds absolute, but the Court has no army, no police, and no independent budget. It depends on the other branches to fund its operations, confirm its members, and enforce its rulings. Those dependencies are where Congress finds its leverage.

Amending the Constitution

The only way to directly reverse a constitutional ruling is to change the Constitution itself. Article V lays out two routes: a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, or a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Either way, three-fourths of the states — 38 of 50 — must then ratify.3Congress.gov. Overview of Article V, Amending the Constitution Every one of the 27 amendments so far has come through Congress, not a convention.4National Archives. The Constitution: Amendments 11-27

Several amendments were direct responses to Court decisions:

The high bar is the point. An amendment requires something close to overwhelming national agreement, which is why most fights with the Court never make it to Article V.

Rewriting Statutes the Court Has Misread

Not every Supreme Court decision is about the Constitution. Many rulings interpret federal statutes, deciding what a law Congress passed actually means. When Congress disagrees with that reading, it can simply amend the statute. This is called a statutory override, and it happens far more often than a constitutional amendment.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is a clean example. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), the Court held that the deadline to file a pay discrimination claim started when the employer first made the discriminatory decision, even if the worker didn’t discover the pay gap until years later. Congress rejected that reading and amended the Civil Rights Act to specify that each discriminatory paycheck restarts the filing clock.8U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 went further, responding to several rulings Congress believed had weakened federal anti-discrimination law. Congress said outright in the Act that it was overriding the Court’s decision in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989) and restoring the legal standards the Court had narrowed.9U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Civil Rights Act of 1991

Where Statutory Overrides Stop Working

Statutory overrides only work when the Court was interpreting a statute. Congress cannot use ordinary legislation to redefine what a constitutional right means. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 tested that line. After the Court narrowed its reading of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, Congress passed RFRA to impose a stricter standard on governments that burden religious practice. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court struck down RFRA as applied to state governments and put it plainly: “Legislation which alters the Free Exercise Clause’s meaning cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause.”10Justia Law. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) Congress can change what a statute says. It cannot use a statute to tell the Court what the Constitution means.

Stripping the Court’s Jurisdiction

Article III gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over most federal cases, but it also lets Congress carve out “exceptions” to that jurisdiction.11Legal Information Institute. Exceptions Clause and Congressional Control over Appellate Jurisdiction In principle, Congress can bar the Court from hearing appeals on certain subjects.

The most dramatic use came in Ex parte McCardle (1869). While the Court was actively deliberating a case challenging military detention during Reconstruction, Congress passed a law revoking its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court upheld the law, saying it was “not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature” and that the exceptions power was “given by express words” in the Constitution.11Legal Information Institute. Exceptions Clause and Congressional Control over Appellate Jurisdiction

Congress has floated jurisdiction-stripping bills on hot-button issues over the years, but few advance. It remains unsettled whether Congress could strip jurisdiction so aggressively that it effectively destroys judicial review, a function many scholars view as structurally required. That uncertainty, plus the political risk, has kept this tool mostly dormant since Reconstruction.

Changing the Size of the Court

The Constitution never sets a number of justices. That number is set by ordinary statute, and Congress has changed it seven times. The current figure of nine is fixed by federal law, not the Constitution.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1 – Number of Justices; Quorum An 1869 law restored the number to nine, and it has stayed there ever since.13Federal Judicial Center. The Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Judiciary

The best-known modern attempt to change the number failed. In 1937, after the Court struck down several New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding a justice for every sitting justice over 70, which would have expanded the bench to as many as fifteen. His motive was open: reshape the ideological balance so the Court would stop blocking his agenda. Congress refused, and Roosevelt paid a heavy political price.14Federal Judicial Center. FDR’s “Court-Packing” Plan The episode built a strong norm against court-packing that has held for nearly a century, even though a simple majority vote and a presidential signature would technically be enough.

Appointments and Impeachment

Over the long run, Congress’s most effective tool for shaping the Court is confirmation. The President nominates justices, but the Senate must confirm them under the Advice and Consent Clause of Article II. The Senate is free to weigh a nominee’s judicial philosophy, past statements, and likely effect on the Court’s balance, not just their qualifications.15Congress.gov. Appointments of Justices to the Supreme Court

Removal is much harder. Congress can impeach a sitting justice: the House charges by simple majority, and the Senate convicts by a two-thirds vote.16U.S. Senate. About Impeachment Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, Samuel Chase in 1804. The Senate acquitted him in 1805; a majority voted guilty on some counts, but none reached two-thirds.17U.S. Senate. Impeachment Trial of Justice Samuel Chase, 1804-05 Chase’s acquittal set a lasting precedent that disagreeing with a justice’s rulings is not by itself grounds for removal.

Federal judges, including justices, hold their seats “during good Behaviour,” meaning for life absent resignation or impeachment. Congress cannot cut a justice’s salary while they serve.18Congress.gov. Good Behavior Clause Doctrine These protections were built to insulate judges from political pressure, and they are much of the reason overriding the Court is so difficult.

Funding and Enforcement

The Court has no way to enforce its own rulings. It relies on the executive branch to carry them out and on Congress to pay for its operations. Congress controls the judiciary’s entire budget through annual appropriations, covering staff salaries, building maintenance, and security.19U.S. Courts. The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2025 Congressional Budget Summary Congress has never openly used the budget to punish a specific ruling, but the leverage is always sitting there. The Court’s independence rests less on any enforcement power of its own than on a sustained political norm that the other branches will honor its judgments.