U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

Media Items
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Louis R. Cohen (Argued the cause for the respondent Hill in both cases)
J. Winston Bryant (Pro se, argued the cause for petitioner in Bryant v. Hill)
John G. Kester (Argued the cause for U.S. Term Limits, Inc)
Drew S. Days, III (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
93-1456
Petitioner: 
U.S. Term Limits
Respondent: 
Thornton
Consolidation: 
No. 93-1828
Opinion: 
514 U.S. 779 (1995)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton , 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456)
Facts of the Case: 

On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.

Question: 

Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Conclusion: 

No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Thornton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Thomas' dissent
Scalia
Wrote a regular concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court