Term limits offer Pennsylvania rare bipartisan opportunity
Coordinated state action could force the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1995 decision in “U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton.”
For decades, Congress has been the land of the permanent incumbent. Nearly nine in 10 Americans support congressional term limits, yet every attempt to impose them has failed because Washington won’t limit itself. But Pennsylvania has the power to change that.
As I previously argued in the Hill, there’s a path forward that doesn’t require Congress to vote against its own interests, or the near-impossible task of a constitutional amendment. The answer lies in coordinated state action that could force the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton.
In Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot add qualifications for federal office beyond those in the Constitution. That decision effectively shut down state-led reform, even though the people overwhelmingly support it.
Pennsylvania is uniquely positioned to lead this effort.
But landmark Supreme Court reversals often emerge when multiple states pass laws that force the court to reexamine old precedents. From Brown v. Board of Education to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, coordinated state action has repeatedly succeeded in prompting judicial reconsideration.
The strategy is straightforward: Pennsylvania, along with states like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee, would pass identical laws establishing term limits for their members of Congress. Each law would face legal challenges and be struck down under Thornton, as expected. But with multiple states acting simultaneously, the issue would surface across several federal circuits, creating pressure for the Supreme Court to revisit the question.
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 founders never intended public service to become a lifelong career.
If term limits are enacted, they should apply prospectively, with current members grandfathered in and everyone’s “term clock” beginning at zero. This avoids endless lawsuits while setting a new standard for the future.
Pennsylvania is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. While the commonwealth has a divided legislature, with Republicans controlling the Senate and Democrats holding a narrow House majority, term limits have historically drawn bipartisan support. This is precisely the kind of reform that could bridge partisan divides and demonstrate that Pennsylvania can lead on issues that matter to voters across the political spectrum.
The state has recent experience standing up to federal overreach. In 2025, Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, a Republican, fought back against the U.S. Department of Justice’s demand for sensitive voter data, calling it “unprecedented and unlawful” federal overreach.
Schmidt emphasized that, in America, states run elections, not the federal government. This bipartisan defense of state sovereignty, supported by officials across party lines, demonstrates Pennsylvania’s willingness to assert its constitutional authority when necessary.
Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly support this reform. A January poll found that 78% of Pennsylvania voters support term limits on Congress, including 79% of Republicans, 78% of Democrats, and 80% of independents. This rare consensus across party lines makes term limits legislation an opportunity for Pennsylvania’s divided government to demonstrate it can work together on reforms that voters clearly want.
The Pennsylvania legislature has shown it can take principled stands on constitutional questions when there’s sufficient public support. Passing term limits legislation, knowing it will be challenged under Thornton, would be consistent with Pennsylvania’s history of defending state authority against federal intrusion. If Pennsylvania acts alongside states like Utah, Arizona, and Kentucky, the combined pressure could succeed where individual efforts have failed.
If Congress won’t act, and the people can’t amend the Constitution directly, Pennsylvania still has one powerful tool: coordinated challenge.
The path forward is simple. Pass the law, invite the challenge, and let the Supreme Court decide. The only question is whether Pennsylvania has the courage to lead.
Tanner Willis is a business operations analyst based in Arlington, Va. He is the author of the book “Smoke and Silence: The Lives of Ol’ Mort.”