What the Constitution says
The framers set age and residency requirements for senators and representatives but did not cap how many terms they could serve. House members run every two years; senators every six. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt's four elections, limits presidents to two terms — but it applies only to the presidency.
How the courts have ruled
During the 1990s, nearly two dozen states tried to impose term limits on their own congressional delegations through ballot measures. In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court struck those laws down in a 5–4 decision, ruling that states cannot add qualifications for federal office beyond those in the Constitution. The Court concluded that any nationwide term limit would require a constitutional amendment.
What an amendment would take
Amending the Constitution requires approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, then ratification by three-fourths of the states (38 of 50). Term-limit amendments have been introduced in Congress many times — including high-profile pushes in 1995 and in recent sessions — but none has cleared the two-thirds threshold in either chamber.
The case for term limits
Supporters argue that long careers in Washington insulate lawmakers from constituents, entrench incumbents who rarely lose reelection, and tilt power toward senior members who control committees. They contend limits would bring in new perspectives, reduce the fundraising advantages of incumbency, and weaken the pull of a permanent political class. Polls over several decades have shown majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents in favor of the idea.
The case against term limits
Opponents argue that legislating is complex and that forcing out experienced members would shift influence to unelected staff, lobbyists and executive-branch officials who remain in place. They note that voters already have a term-limit tool — elections — and say mandatory limits would override that choice. Some research on state legislatures with term limits has found mixed effects on polarization, partisanship and the balance of power between branches.
Why the debate persists
The gap between public opinion and legislative action is part of what keeps the issue alive. Critics of Congress point to it as evidence that lawmakers protect their own tenure; defenders say sweeping structural changes deserve careful deliberation, not poll-driven action. Either way, absent a constitutional amendment, the length of a congressional career remains in the hands of voters in each district and state.