Corruption ‘Infects’ Supreme Court, Claims Texas Firebrand

A Texas Senate candidate challenging Attorney General Ken Paxton says the U.S. Supreme Court is “infected” with corruption and he would vote to overhaul it, including possibly adding more justices.

Story Snapshot

State Representative James Talarico told Fox News on September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court “needs to be overhauled.”
His plan includes binding ethics rules, term limits, and he’s open to discussing more justices.
He repeated the call at an August campaign event, saying the Court shows “corruption in the highest court.”
Critics, including past bipartisan commissions, warn Court-packing could backfire and weaken judicial independence.
Public trust in the Supreme Court already dropped sharply between 2019 and 2022, well before this debate.

Talarico Calls the Court ‘Infected’ With Corruption

Talarico made his comments during a Fox News interview on September 10, 2026. He said he would support an overhaul of the Supreme Court. The plan would include “binding codes of conduct for our justices,” term limits, and he said he’s “open to a discussion about expanding the number of justices.”

This wasn’t a one-time remark. At an August 14, 2026, campaign event, Talarico said, “We must finally overhaul the Supreme Court because we’ve seen corruption in the highest court.” That transcript source notes its excerpt has not been independently verified, so the exact wording carries some uncertainty. Still, the repeated message shows a consistent campaign theme, not a single offhand comment.

What’s Driving the Frustration

Talarico’s complaint lines up with a real Supreme Court decision touching campaign finance. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, decided June 30, 2026, the Court ruled that preventing “influence, access, ingratiation, or gratitude” from political spending was not a valid reason to limit that spending. Critics of the ruling argue it opens the door to more money shaping politics.

Neither Talarico’s campaign nor his Fox News interview laid out which specific justice, case, or financial dealing he considers corrupt. The word “infected” is strong, but so far it isn’t tied to a named ethics violation or a documented financial conflict. That gap matters for voters trying to judge whether this is a policy argument or a political talking point.

Why Court Overhauls Draw Warnings From Both Sides

Commentator Guy Benson pushed back hard, framing Talarico’s proposal as an attempt to “set fire to the judiciary” because a political side didn’t like the Court’s rulings. That reaction shows how quickly these debates turn partisan, with each side accusing the other of trying to rig the umpire rather than fix real problems.

A bipartisan commission formed under President Biden studied Court expansion in 2021 and found the risks “considerable.” The commission warned that repeated political fights over adding justices could damage the Court’s public standing, even if the goal was to restore trust in the first place.

The Cato Institute has made a similar warning from a different political angle. Its analysts argue that once one party expands the Court to get favorable rulings, the other party will likely retaliate by expanding it again. The result, they say, could be a judiciary too weak to check abuses of power by whoever holds office.

James Talarico says he'll vote to overhaul the Supreme Court, term limits included, and he's "open to a discussion about expanding the number of justices."

Term limits run straight into Article III. Judges hold their offices "during good Behaviour," and that's written in the…

— Jon Holland (@JonHolland1776) October 21, 2026

Trust in the Court Was Already Sliding

This fight isn’t happening in a vacuum. Surveys tracking nearly two decades of public opinion found that trust in the Supreme Court stayed broadly steady across party lines from 2005 through 2019. Then it fell sharply, dropping from 68% to 46% between 2019 and 2022, with the steepest decline among Democrats and independents.

That drop came after major rulings, including the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. It shows the Court’s legitimacy problem predates Talarico’s campaign and reflects a broader pattern: when big rulings break along ideological lines, public confidence tends to split the same way, fueling calls for reform from whichever side feels sidelined.

For voters frustrated with Washington overall, the dispute captures a familiar tension. Many Americans on the left and right agree something feels broken in how power works in the capital, whether it’s Congress, federal agencies, or now the courts. Whether term limits, ethics codes, or more justices would actually fix that, or just shift the fight, remains unresolved and untested.