Proposals for structural changes to the US Supreme Court have attracted attention in recent years amid a perceived “legitimacy crisis” afflicting the institution. This article first assesses whether the court is in fact facing a legitimacy crisis and then considers whether prominent reform proposals are likely to address the institutional weaknesses that reformers aim to resolve. The article concludes that key trends purportedly contributing to the crisis at the court are more ambiguous in their empirical foundations and normative implications than reformers often suggest. It also argues that prominent reform proposals—including term limits, age limits, lottery selection of justices, and explicit partisan balance requirements for court membership—are unlikely to resolve the institutional flaws that proponents perceive. It ends by suggesting a more modest (though novel) reform, which would allocate two lifetime appointments per presidential term and allow the size of the court to fluctuate within bounds.

中文翻译：

---

结构性变化能否修复最高法院？

近年来，由于人们认为美国最高法院面临“合法性危机”，对美国最高法院进行结构性改革的提议引起了人们的关注。本文首先评估法院是否确实面临合法性危机，然后考虑突出的改革建议是否可能解决改革者旨在解决的制度弱点。这篇文章的结论是，据称导致法院危机的关键趋势在其经验基础和规范含义上比改革者通常建议的更为模糊。它还认为，重要的改革提议——包括任期限制、年龄限制、法官的抽签选择以及对法院成员的明确的党派平衡要求——不太可能解决支持者认为的制度缺陷。