House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is trying to have it both ways on Supreme Court expansion, but his own words on Sunday may have given the game away.
Appearing on NBC News’ Meet the Press, Jeffries was pressed by host Kristen Welker on whether he supports adding justices to the high court—a question he consistently dodged. But his closing remark, according to The Federalist, effectively outs his position.
Jeffries Pivots to Ethics, Then Redistricting
When Welker cited Jeffries’ recent comments about supporting “dramatic Supreme Court reform” and similar signals from former Vice President Kamala Harris, Jeffries immediately reframed the issue. He described “dramatic reform” as ensuring the court has “an ethical code of conduct” so that justices are “not able to simply conduct themselves in ways that are inconsistent with the notion in this country that no one is above the law.”
He also leaned on media criticism of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, echoing what The Federalist calls “dishonest hatchet jobs” from corporate media allies.
The New York Democrat then pivoted to attacking the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which limited racial considerations in redistricting. Jeffries accused the majority of “do[ing] the bidding of extreme MAGA Republicans” and unleashing “Jim Crow-like tactics” by adopting colorblind redistricting. He claimed the ruling is “inconsistent with the law and with the Constitution,” but offered no legal explanation for that assertion.
The Tell: Raskin and Johnson
Jeffries closed his remarks by pledging that Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and other leading Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee “are going to take the lead on what dramatic reform of the Supreme Court looks like.”
That sentence matters, The Federalist notes, because Raskin and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., are among the most prominent court-packing supporters in Congress. Both have sponsored legislation to expand the court from nine to 13 justices—a change that would effectively hand Democrats an ideological majority on the bench.
Both lawmakers have also defended court-packing in committee hearings and recently opposed a constitutional amendment that would keep the court at nine seats.
If Jeffries truly opposed expanding the court, the report argues, he would have said so directly when Welker asked. Instead, he assigned the party’s leading expansion advocates to spearhead the reform effort.
Deja Vu: Biden and Spanberger
The Federalist draws a parallel between Jeffries’ maneuvering and the tactics of Joe Biden in 2020 and Rep. Abigail Spanberger last year. In both cases, Democratic leaders presented moderate-sounding positions on the court while planning to govern from the left once in power.
The outlet frames Jeffries’ strategy as an attempt to deceive voters, with every intention of implementing hard-left policies if Democrats regain control of the federal government.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court has become a central political battleground. After years of progressive activist rulings, the current conservative-leaning court has begun overturning several precedents. That has led some Democrats to view the court as an obstacle rather than a tool, prompting calls for structural changes—including expansion.
Jeffries may believe his language is careful enough to obscure his party’s endgame. But as The Federalist concludes, his remarks serve as further affirmation of how Democrats intend to reshape the judiciary if given the chance this fall.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/08/17/while-trying-to-avoid-court-packing-question-jeffries-all-but-admits-he-supports-it/