Supreme Court Justices rarely wade into the political fray, but this week, two of the nation’s most prominent justices—Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor—offered unusually direct commentary on one of the most controversial political questions of the moment: Can President Donald Trump run for a third term?
The debate, which has simmered at the edges of American political discourse for years, burst into the open following a series of high-profile interviews. On September 8, 2025, Justice Barrett sat down with Fox News’s Bret Baier, who pressed her about the constitutional limits on presidential terms. Baier asked, with a wry smile, whether the 22nd Amendment’s two-term limit was “cut and dried.” Barrett didn’t hesitate: “Well, that’s, you know, that’s what the amendment says, right? You know, after FDR had four terms, that’s what that amendment says.” Her response echoed the amendment’s plain language, which states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
Barrett’s comments came at a time when President Trump’s intentions remain the subject of speculation and, for some, alarm. Trump’s campaign and the Trump Organization have stoked the fires, selling “Trump 2028” hats and T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan, “The future looks bright! Rewrite the rules with the new Trump 2028 t-shirt.” According to The New York Times, Trump’s second-term approval rating has hovered between 40 and 50 percent, and he has repeatedly teased the idea of running for a third term, sometimes in jest, sometimes less so.
Last month, Trump told CNBC’s Squawk Box, “I’d like to run. I have the best poll numbers I’ve ever had.” Yet, he added, “I would probably not run again,” leaving the door open just a crack. Earlier in 2025, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump mused about possible “ways” to run, mentioning write-in votes and vice presidential scenarios. “There are ways of doing it. And you know the same thing. And if you look at the vice presidential thing, and you hear different concepts and different—other people say, ‘You can have a write-in vote.’ There’s lots of different things,” Trump said, as reported by NBC News.
One theory making the rounds is that Trump could run as Vice President on a ticket with his current Vice President, JD Vance, and then assume the presidency if Vance were to resign after winning. However, the 22nd Amendment also states that anyone ineligible to be president is likewise ineligible to be vice president, complicating such a gambit. The constitutional bar appears formidable, if not insurmountable.
Some in Congress have moved to clarify—or, depending on your perspective, challenge—the amendment’s intent. Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced a resolution shortly after Trump’s 2025 inauguration to allow a president to be elected three times, arguing that Trump needs “the necessary time to reverse the U.S.’s decay and restore its greatness.” Meanwhile, Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York filed a motion in late 2024 to reaffirm the 22nd Amendment’s validity, stating, “When the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, our nation re-affirmed one of our most foundational beliefs: no one shall be king. The Constitution is clear that no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and any attempt for Donald Trump to circumvent the 22nd Amendment is blatantly unconstitutional.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s senior liberal, added her perspective during an appearance on ABC’s “The View.” While she agreed the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, she noted, “No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don’t know. So, it’s not settled because we don’t have a court case about that issue, but it is in the Constitution.” She emphasized, “There’s nothing that’s the greater law in the United States than the Constitution of the United States.”
Barrett and Sotomayor’s remarks are especially notable given the Court’s current docket, which is packed with emergency cases related to presidential power and Trump’s efforts to consolidate authority within the executive branch. According to CNN, Barrett has mostly sided with Trump in these cases, while Sotomayor has regularly dissented. The justices’ willingness to speak publicly—while promoting their respective books—offers a rare glimpse into their thinking outside the formality of written opinions.
Critics on social media and in legal circles have parsed Barrett’s careful language. Some have suggested she was too cautious, declining to say outright that the issue is “cut and dried.” Yet, as reported by The Daily Beast, Barrett explained that the Constitution’s “genius” is that it’s “written at varying levels of generality.” Some parts, like the minimum age for the presidency, are specific, while others, such as freedom of speech, are more open to interpretation. But, when it comes to presidential term limits, Barrett was unequivocal: “True,” she said, when asked if the 22nd Amendment limits a president to two terms. “That’s what the amendment says, right? You know, after FDR had four terms, that’s what that amendment says.”
Barrett even joked that if Trump were to call her about running again, “she might wonder if he had the wrong number,” as reported by USA Today. This lighthearted aside underscores her view that the constitutional text is clear, regardless of political pressure or public speculation.
Beyond the legal wrangling, the debate over a third term for Trump has become something of a political Rorschach test. Supporters see in the idea a chance to continue Trump’s agenda and, as Rep. Ogles put it, “restore greatness.” Detractors, including Rep. Goldman, view any attempt to run again as a direct assault on a foundational democratic norm.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court itself faces a crisis of confidence among the public. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in August 2025 found that half of Americans now hold an unfavorable opinion of the Court. Barrett acknowledged this reality in her interview, emphasizing that the Court decides cases “as they come,” and not based on who happens to occupy the Oval Office. “We are taking each case and we’re looking at the question of presidential power as it comes. And the cases that we decide today are going to matter four presidencies from now, six presidencies from now, and so on,” she said, according to Newsweek.
As the Court prepares to open its 2025 term, the justices’ comments serve as a reminder that, while political winds may shift, the Constitution’s text remains the anchor for American democracy. Whatever President Trump’s ultimate decision, the nation’s highest court appears united—at least for now—on the meaning of the 22nd Amendment: two terms, no more.
