Supreme Court expansion plan fuels political and judicial friction

On Sept. 13, Rep. Jeong Cheong-rae of the ruling Democratic Party criticized the judiciary’s pushback against the party’s judicial reform proposals, including plans to expand the number of Supreme Court justices, saying, “They brought this on themselves, especially Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae.” Within the party, criticism also targeted Chief Justice Cho and Judge Ji Gwi-yeon, who handled the domestic insurrection case, with comments such as “co-conspirators in the rebellion” and “It’s laughable for people like this to talk about judicial independence.” The ruling party appears to be applying broad pressure on the judiciary after the national court chiefs’ temporary meeting on Sept. 12 emphasized “guaranteeing judicial independence” and insisted that “judiciary participation is essential in discussions on judicial reform.”

This was the first temporary meeting of court chiefs in three and a half years, since discussions on COVID-19 measures in 2022. The 42 presiding judges from various courts held a marathon seven-and-a-half-hour session, expressing their concerns over the reform proposals, reflecting the gravity and urgency of the matter. A central element of the Democratic Party’s “five major judicial reforms” is expanding the Supreme Court from 14 justices to between 26 and 30 during President Lee Jae-myung’s term. Other proposals include establishing a judicial evaluation committee, composed of individuals recommended by the National Assembly, to assess judges; diversifying the composition of the Supreme Court nomination committee; expanding the disclosure of lower court rulings; and prior review of search warrants. Each of these measures has significant implications for the judiciary’s role.

Given this, it is natural for the judiciary to participate in discussions. Previous major judicial reforms have always involved the government, the political parties, and the judiciary itself. However, as Cheon Dae-yeop, head of the Court Administration, described the situation as “an extraordinary emergency with unusual procedural developments,” the ruling party is pushing ahead alone, ignoring the judiciary’s input. Even the proposal to rapidly expand the Supreme Court has raised concerns within the judiciary, including the potential burden on lower courts when mid-level judges are reassigned as research judges to assist new justices. Preventing such negative consequences requires careful consideration of both the scale and timing of any expansion.

Despite these concerns, the Democratic Party has set a timetable to “complete judicial reforms before Chuseok,” pushing the message that “the judiciary is merely an object of reform, not qualified to participate in discussions.” This approach appears to prioritize speed over deliberation, disregarding the judiciary’s perspective. The ultimate goal of judicial reform is to enhance the quality of judicial services for the public through faster and fairer trials. One cannot help but question whether the ruling party has lost sight of this objective.