Franklin Roosevelt's court-packing plan was his 1937 proposal to expand the Supreme Court by adding new justices, aiming to secure a Court friendly to New Deal programs. In AP Gov, it's the go-to example of the elected branches attempting a political check on judicial power (Topic 2.11).
In 1937, FDR was frustrated. The Supreme Court kept striking down pieces of his New Deal, and he had no vacancies to fill. So he proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, which would let the president appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over age 70 who refused to retire, potentially growing the Court from 9 justices to as many as 15. The plan was legal on paper. The Constitution never sets the Court's size, so Congress could change it by ordinary legislation. But critics across both parties saw it as an attack on judicial independence and the separation of powers, and Congress rejected it.
For AP Gov, the court-packing plan is not really a history lesson. It's a case study in how the other branches can pressure the Supreme Court. The CED lists it alongside other checks on the Court, like constitutional amendments, jurisdiction stripping, and delayed implementation. The plan failed, but many historians note the Court started upholding New Deal laws shortly afterward (the famous 'switch in time that saved nine'), which shows that even a failed political check can shape judicial behavior.
This term lives in Unit 2: Interactions Among Branches of Government, specifically Topic 2.11: Checks on the Judicial Branch. It directly supports learning objective AP Gov 2.11.B, which asks you to explain how the other branches can limit the Supreme Court's power. The essential knowledge for that LO lists the tools available, including legislation modifying Court decisions, constitutional amendments, appointments that shift the Court's ideological balance, delayed implementation, and jurisdiction stripping. FDR's plan is the most dramatic real-world attempt at the appointment-based check. It also feeds AP Gov 2.11.A, the debate over judicial review itself, because FDR's whole argument was that an activist Court was overriding the will of elected majorities. If you can explain why the plan was proposed, why it was legal, and why it still failed politically, you understand the tension at the heart of Topic 2.11.
Keep studying AP® Gov Unit 2
Confirmation Process (Unit 2)
Appointments and confirmations are the normal, accepted way presidents shift the Court's ideology over time. Court-packing is that same logic taken to an extreme, creating new seats instead of waiting for old ones to open up. That's exactly why it sparked a constitutional backlash.
Checks and Balances (Unit 1)
The court-packing fight shows checks running in both directions at once. The Court checked FDR by striking down New Deal laws, FDR tried to check the Court by restructuring it, and Congress checked FDR by killing the bill. One episode, three branches, all pushing back on each other.
Brown vs Board of Education (Unit 3)
Brown connects to a different check from the same CED list, where states and officials delayed implementing a Supreme Court decision for years. Pair them on an FRQ. Court-packing is the elected branches restructuring the Court, while delayed implementation is ignoring it slowly.
Federal Courts (Unit 2)
The plan works as an example because Article III leaves the structure of the federal judiciary, including the number of justices, up to Congress. Life tenure protects individual judges, but the institution itself is shaped by ordinary politics.
Expect this in multiple-choice questions on Topic 2.11. Practice questions typically ask two things. First, what was the plan's goal, and the answer is to secure a Supreme Court majority that would uphold New Deal legislation. Second, which constitutional principle critics said it threatened, and the answer centers on judicial independence and the separation of powers. No released FRQ has used the term verbatim, but it's a strong piece of evidence for any free-response prompt asking how the legislative or executive branch can limit the judiciary, or for an argument essay about whether the Supreme Court is truly independent. The move the exam rewards is precision. Don't just say FDR 'attacked the Court.' Say he proposed legislation to add justices, which was constitutional in form but rejected as a political overreach.
Both are ways the elected branches shift the Court's ideological balance, and the CED lists appointments as a legitimate check in 2.11.B. The difference is timing and method. Normal appointments fill existing vacancies as they occur, with Senate confirmation. Court-packing manufactures new seats specifically to outvote sitting justices. The first is routine politics; the second was rejected as a threat to judicial independence even by FDR's own party.
FDR's 1937 court-packing plan would have let him appoint a new justice for every sitting justice over 70, expanding the Court from 9 members to as many as 15.
The goal was to create a Supreme Court majority that would stop striking down New Deal programs.
The plan was technically constitutional because the Constitution never fixes the Court at nine justices; Congress sets the number by law.
Congress rejected the plan because critics argued it destroyed judicial independence and upset the separation of powers.
In AP Gov, this is the textbook example for LO 2.11.B, showing how the president and Congress can attempt to check the Supreme Court's power.
Even though the plan failed, the Court began upholding New Deal legislation soon after, showing political pressure can influence judicial behavior.
It was FDR's 1937 proposal to add up to six new justices to the Supreme Court, one for each sitting justice over 70 who wouldn't retire. The goal was to build a majority that would uphold New Deal programs the Court had been striking down.
No. The Constitution does not set the number of Supreme Court justices, so Congress can change it by ordinary legislation (and has, multiple times in the 1800s). The plan failed politically, not legally, because critics saw it as an attack on judicial independence.
No, Congress rejected it in 1937. But the Court began upholding New Deal legislation shortly afterward, a shift often called 'the switch in time that saved nine,' so the pressure arguably worked even though the bill died.
Normal appointments fill seats that open through retirement or death, with Senate confirmation. Court-packing creates brand-new seats specifically to change case outcomes. Both shift the Court's ideology, but only the first is treated as routine.
It appears in Topic 2.11 (Checks on the Judicial Branch) as the classic example for LO 2.11.B, which asks you to explain how the other branches can limit the Supreme Court's power. It sits alongside checks like constitutional amendments, jurisdiction stripping, and delayed implementation of rulings.
Connect this key term to the AP exam workflow: review the course, practice questions, and check related study tools.
Review units, study guides, and course resources.
Check this vocabulary in multiple-choice context.
Apply key concepts in written AP responses.
Estimate the exam score you are working toward.
Review the highest-yield facts before practice.
Put the full course together before test day.