U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Arkansas amended its state constitution to impose term limits on its U.S. Senators and Representatives. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, holding that states cannot add to the qualifications for Congress set in the U.S. Constitution.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision confirmed that only the Constitution itself can define qualifications for federal office, ensuring uniformity across all states.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: A reaffirmation of federal supremacy in setting qualifications for national office.
• Took Away: States’ power to impose additional restrictions, such as term limits, on federal legislators.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The Court acted within its role, preserving the constitutional structure. Critics saw it as limiting states’ ability to reform Congress, but the ruling enforced national uniformity.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
States cannot impose their own term limits on U.S. Senators or Representatives. Only a constitutional amendment could create congressional term limits.

• Separation of Powers
• Congress
• Elections
• Term Limits