Carville Urges Dems to Pack SCOTUS, Pass Amnesty If They Win Midterms

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville is once again stirring debate after laying out a sweeping—and controversial—vision for how Democrats should wield power if they regain full control of Washington.

Speaking on the “Politics War Room” podcast, Carville argued that a future Democratic trifecta should move immediately to enact major structural changes to the American political system, including granting statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, as well as expanding the Supreme Court of the United States from nine to 13 justices.

“If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13,” Carville said.

His remarks came in response to discussions about how aggressively Democrats should act if they return to power—echoing broader calls on the Left to rapidly implement policy changes early in an administration.

Notably, Carville advised that such proposals should not be central to campaign messaging.

“Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it,” he said, suggesting that Democrats should conserve political capital during elections and deploy it only after securing power.

The comments are likely to intensify ongoing concerns among conservatives about institutional overreach and the potential reshaping of America’s constitutional framework for partisan advantage.

Efforts to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have long been contentious. Proponents argue that residents in both jurisdictions deserve full congressional representation, while critics warn such moves could dramatically alter the balance of power—particularly in the Senate, where each state is guaranteed equal representation under the Constitution.

Puerto Rico’s political status remains especially complex, with multiple referendums over the years yielding mixed signals on whether residents favor statehood, independence, or continued territorial status. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C., despite having a population larger than some states, still lacks voting representation in Congress.

Equally controversial is the idea of expanding the Supreme Court. While Congress has the authority to change the number of justices—a figure set at nine since 1869—critics argue that doing so for political purposes would undermine judicial independence and open the door to repeated court-packing efforts whenever power shifts.

Supporters of expansion, however, claim such measures could address perceived imbalances in the judiciary and reflect evolving political realities.

Carville framed his proposals as a response to structural features of the system, including the Senate’s equal representation of states regardless of population—an arrangement explicitly established by the Constitution and long defended by advocates of federalism.

Still, his remarks reflect the views of a longtime strategist rather than official policy from Democratic leadership. There is currently no indication that party leaders are preparing to pursue such sweeping changes, and any attempt to do so would face significant political and procedural obstacles.

Even in a scenario where Democrats regain control of Congress, enacting these proposals would require overcoming Senate rules, potential legal challenges, and opposition from President Donald J. Trump, whose administration has emphasized preserving constitutional norms and resisting structural changes viewed as partisan power grabs.

For many conservatives, Carville’s comments serve as a stark reminder of what they see as a growing willingness on the Left to fundamentally alter longstanding institutions in pursuit of political advantage—raising the stakes for future elections and the direction of the country.