U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995): The End of the Term-Limit Debate?

By Ben Pope — November 9, 2025

Introduction

On May 22, 1995, the Supreme Court ruled on the landmark case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), in a decision that continues to shape constitutional interpretation today. This case held that individual states cannot impose term limits, or any other eligibility requirements, on their representatives in Congress unless otherwise specified in the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The case arose after a 1992 amendment to the Arkansas Constitution limited members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms. The Supreme Court found this an unconstitutional amendment as it would give states preemptive authority over the Federal Government, which would disrupt constitutional uniformity. Term limits could now not be imposed unless by federal constitutional amendment—a high bar to reach in political terms. The ruling effectively invalidated similar provisions in twenty-three other state constitutions.

In a dissenting opinion to Term Limits, Inc., Justice Clarence Thomas expressed that the Constitution does not restrict the States from setting eligibility requirements for their congressional representatives. He further reasoned that even if such limits existed, the Arkansas amendment did not violate the Constitution because it only affected ballot access, and candidates exceeding the limit could still run as write-ins.

Historical Context of Term Limits

Term limits remain a recurring topic in modern political debate. Some argue, “if it is such a problem, why did the Founding Fathers not include term limits in their new government?” In fact, they did—the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution, stated that “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any [Confederation Congress] term of six years.” However, this mandatory three-year break caused problems in the fledgling government as it forced out officials just as they started to gain diplomatic experience. The Framers decided that the frequency of elections would allow for adequate turnover at the will of the people and a natural check on power. They also reasoned that limiting or keeping the people from re-electing a leader they trust would undermine, rather than strengthen, democracy.

In 1789, the year the Constitution was signed, South Carolina Representative Thomas Tucker was the first to propose a bill imposing congressional term limits. It outlined that Senators would be elected for one-year terms and would only be allowed to serve five years in a given six-year period. Representatives would follow similar limits with two-year terms and serve six years in a given eight-year period. Tucker’s motion to refer the proposal to the Committee of the Whole was defeated on August 18, 1789.

The Modern Debate

The discussion of term limits resurfaced in the 1940s due to the unprecedented presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. With no legal term limits to abide by, every previous president had followed the tradition set by George Washington of stepping down after two terms. However, Roosevelt was elected to four terms, passing away early in his fourth term. The idea of a President holding office for sixteen years made Americans at the time feel uneasy, even if it was “the will of the people.” Subsequently, the Twenty-Second Amendment was passed, formally limiting the president to two terms.

However, the Twenty-Second Amendment only limited the President, maintaining unlimited time in power for the judicial and legislative branches. After its passage, President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated in reference to its ratification, “What is good for the President might very well be good for Congress.” Since the 1950s, numerous attempts have been made in Congress to pass a bill that imposes congressional term limits—all have failed.

Public Opinion and Ongoing Relevance

A Pew Research study conducted in 2023 found that 87% of Americans are in favor of congressional term limits. However, as of 2023, only 112 of the 435 representatives and 21 of the 100 senators had agreed to support a constitutional amendment to enact them—well short of the two-thirds majority required in both chambers. That is far below the three-fourths majorities needed in both houses to pass an amendment. Some argue that Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton set too high a constitutional bar, allowing career legislators to remain in power, denying the will of the public. Others say creating more eligibility requirements would equally undermine voter choice. Regardless, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton has had a lasting effect on United States politics over the last three decades, and it seems it will continue to do so for some time.

Bibliography