Trump could get another shot at shaping the Supreme Court, and history suggests it's not out of the question

April 23 doesn't usually stand out on the Supreme Court calendar, but in 1985, it marked the day the justices heard arguments in Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. The case centered on a Texas city's refusal to grant a permit for a group home serving people with intellectual disabilities. The home's operators sued, arguing the denial was discriminatory. The Court ultimately agreed in a unanimous 1986 decision-but stopped short of creating a new constitutional protection.

The ruling was significant, but not sweeping. The justices found the city's actions failed even the most basic legal test for fairness, but they declined to classify intellectual disability as a 'suspect class'-a legal category like race or national origin that triggers stricter judicial scrutiny. That left a gap: while cities couldn't arbitrarily block homes for people with disabilities, those individuals still lacked the same constitutional safeguards as other marginalized groups.

Now, nearly four decades later, that case is more of a historical marker. The real conversation in legal and political circles has shifted to what might come next. With former President Donald Trump leading in early 2026 polls ahead of a potential return to the White House, speculation is growing about whether he could appoint a fourth justice. He already reshaped the Court during his first term, installing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Some analysts say another opening isn't just possible-it's likely. Looking at the past 50 years, Supreme Court vacancies have occurred about every 2.5 years on average. Since 1971, there have been 15 changes in the Court's composition. That pace suggests the current lineup, stable for several years, may not stay that way for long. Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito are all over 70, and while health and timing are unpredictable, turnover is built into the system.

Supporters of a potential fourth Trump appointment see it as a continuation of a conservative legal project-finalizing a durable majority on key issues like abortion, executive power, and regulatory authority. Critics worry it would deepen perceptions of the Court as politically driven, especially if a vacancy arises close to or after a contested election.

There's no indication any justice is preparing to step down. But history shows that sudden openings are part of the Court's rhythm. The 1985 argument in Cleburne happened during a period of relative stability-just two years after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joined, and four before Justice Anthony Kennedy. Yet by the early 1990s, three new justices had joined. Patterns don't predict timing, but they do suggest change is inevitable.

For now, April 23 serves as both a quiet legal anniversary and a reminder: the Court may seem permanent, but its makeup is always in motion.