U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

• Federalism
• Terms and definitions
• Laws
• Court cases
• Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• State survey of the federal grant review process
  • State responses to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
  • State responses by question to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
• Federalism by the numbers
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests
  • Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
• Index of articles

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
Reference: 514 U.S. 779
Term: 1995
Important Dates
Argued: November 29, 1994 Decided: May 22, 1995
Outcome
Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed
Majority
John Paul Stevens • David Souter • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer
Concurring
Anthony Kennedy
Dissenting
William Rehnquist • Sandra Day O'Connor • Antonin Scalia • Clarence Thomas

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton is a case decided on May 22, 1995, by the United States Supreme Court holding that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The case concerned the Congressional term limits provisions of 23 states. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: Amendment 73 to the Arkansas State Constitution was adopted in 1992 to establish term limits for elected officials in the state government and members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.

The issue: Can states alter qualifications for Congress that are established in the U.S. Constitution?

The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court and held that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress that are stricter than those specified in the Constitution.

Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that states cannot create qualifications for prospective members of Congress that are stricter than those specified in the Constitution. This decision invalidated provisions that had imposed term limits on members of Congress in 23 states. To read more about the impact of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton click here.

Background

Constitutional amendment 73 to Arkansas's state constitution denied ballot access to any United States Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate.

Soon after the amendment's adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it judicially invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the United States Constitution:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen,

and:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, Section 2).

Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.

Oral argument

Oral argument was held on November 29, 1994. The case was decided on May 22, 1995.

Decision

The Supreme Court decided 5-4 to affirm the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union participated in the trial as an amicus curiae, urging it to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision; thus, the case is viewed by some as a political victory for the ACLU.

Opinions

Opinion of the court

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, argued that sustaining Amendment 73 would result in inconsistent state qualifications for U.S. Representatives which would not align with the national uniformity that was sought by the framers.

“	Consistent with these views, the constitutional structure provides for a uniform salary to be paid from the national treasury, allows the States but a limited role in federal elections, and maintains strict checks on state interference with the federal election process. The Constitution also provides that the qualifications of the representatives of each State will be judged by the representatives of the entire Nation. The Constitution thus creates a uniform national body representing the interests of a single people. Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their representatives would result in a patchwork of state qualifications, undermining the uniformity and the national character that the Framers envisioned and sought to ensure.	”
—John Paul Stevens, majority opinion in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

Concurring opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, argued that Amendment 73 would interfere with the relationship between the federal government and its representatives.

“	The arguments for term limitations (or ballot restrictions having the same effect) are not lacking in force; but the issue, as all of us must acknowledge, is not the efficacy of those measures but whether they have a legitimate source, given their origin in the enactments of a single State. There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere. Because the Arkansas enactment intrudes upon this federal domain, it exceeds the boundaries of the Constitution.	”
—Anthony Kennedy, concurring opinion in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

Dissenting opinions

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the Constitution's authority relies on the consent of the people of individual states, not of the whole nation. Thomas posited that the Constitution is silent on the matter of the qualifications clause, and therefore cannot bar state action.

“	Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.	”
—Clarence Thomas, dissenting opinion in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

Impact

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton established that states cannot create qualifications for prospective members of Congress that are stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The ruling in this case reinforced uniformity among the federal and state governments in regards to qualifications for elected officials. This decision invalidated provisions that had imposed term limits on members of Congress in 23 states.

See also

• The Rehnquist Court
• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court
• Other ballot access lawsuits:
  • Williams v. Rhodes (1968)
  • Bullock v. Carter (1972)
  • Lubin v. Panish (1974)
  • Storer v. Brown (1974)
  • Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party (1979)
  • Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983)
  • Norman v. Reed (1992)

External lnks

• Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
• Supreme Court of the United States
• Search Google News for this topic