A largely indecipherable procedural fight in the Senate last week made one thing perfectly clear: The famed filibuster is on life support, even though it might linger a bit longer.
The decision by Republicans to sidestep the chamber’s independent rules referee and strike down California’s plan to phase out gas-powered vehicles proved once again that a majority can maneuver around the 60-vote filibuster requirement as long as its leaders are willing to take the heat and — most importantly — produce the votes.
That proposition could be tested again in the near future, as the Senate takes up its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, legislation carrying much of President Trump’s domestic agenda that Republicans are trying to push through Congress on a simple majority vote.
Republicans had the votes and the nerve to navigate around the filibuster to block California’s phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, even though the Senate parliamentarian and the independent Government Accountability Office said the move did not meet the requirements for an expedited, filibuster-free vote. It took nearly a dozen procedural motions to do so, including one raising a point of order — or objection — on whether points of order should be in order.
The outcome, which had significant repercussions for national environmental policy, left Democrats fuming about what they said was the abuse of a convoluted congressional review process meant to be used to undo federal regulations.
“We are setting a precedent that the filibuster is essentially now meaningless,” said Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who was part of a group that challenged the Republicans but fell short. “Because if you can do away with the filibuster to do away with one state’s clean air, well you can pretty much do away with the filibuster for everything and anything.”
The Republican power play did not attack the filibuster head-on, something that Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, had vowed not to do. Republicans claimed a loophole, arguing that the circumstances were a unique “case of first impression” that had no precedent.
That meant there was nothing for the parliamentarian, who looks to Senate precedents when deciding what is allowable, to rule on. And that, in turn, avoided a direct vote on overruling the parliamentarian, a situation that Mr. Thune was eager to avoid and that he might not have had the votes for anyway.
Republicans, though, can hardly be accused of delivering the blow that sent the filibuster reeling. That punch came from Democrats a dozen years ago, in November 2013.
Democrats, led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, were extremely frustrated with the Republican effort organized by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, then the minority leader, to block President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees.
Mr. Reid had finally had enough when Republicans simultaneously stymied three nominees to the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He engineered a series of straight majority votes to lower the filibuster threshold to a simple majority on lower-bench judicial nominees and most executive branch picks.
Not all Democrats agreed with his plan. Senator Carl Levin, the respected veteran Michigan Democrat, argued that if a majority could change the rules on its own — a maneuver known as “the nuclear option” — there were no rules.
“If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules which bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power — not just on judges and executive nominees, but on legislation,” Mr. Levin warned his colleagues.
The move had monumental consequences, including allowing President Trump to place three justices on the Supreme Court. He had no need to make selections palatable to Democrats, since they had no ability to influence the outcome. It is virtually certain that most members of Mr. Trump’s current cabinet would have never been confirmed if a 60-vote threshold had been in place.
Talk of the nuclear option first began in 2003, when Senate Republicans grew angry at Democratic obstruction of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees and faced pressure to act. Party leaders were reluctant and unsure if the votes were there, so the fight dragged on for more than a year, and through an election cycle, as the Bush nominees stalled.
Finally, in 2005, Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee and the majority leader, was ready to force the issue, emboldened by new Republican senators in his ranks. But a bipartisan group of 14 senators — seven Republicans and seven Democrats — instead intervened and struck a deal among themselves on the terms of a series of judicial confirmations, averting a crisis at the last moment.
Lawmakers and senior aides said that Mr. Thune and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, tried last week to forge a similar deal to avert the showdown over California, but nothing came of the brief negotiations. With partisanship so deep these days, no compromise or gang emerged.
The so-called Gang of 14 deal held until 2013. Besides Mr. Reid’s move, other actions chipping away at the filibuster have occurred, including a Republican-led effort in 2017 to extend the majority-only confirmation threshold to Supreme Court justices and another in 2019 to shorten the time for consideration of nominees, a change that has allowed both parties to speed the seating of federal judges.
Democrats tried in 2022 to eliminate the ability of Republicans to block a series of election measures in what would have probably been the filibuster’s death knell. But two holdouts in the party — Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — would not join them, and the effort collapsed.
The filibuster will be put to the test again in the coming weeks as Senate Republicans take up their version of the sweeping domestic policy bill passed by the House, which is being considered under special parameters, known as budget reconciliation, that shield fiscal legislation from filibusters.
Republicans will be eager to add provisions that may not comply with the strict rules limiting what can be included in such bills, and will come under pressure to overrule or even dismiss the parliamentarian if her decisions go against them.
When Democrats were pushing through their reconciliation bill in 2021, the parliamentarian struck a proposal increasing the minimum wage, angering progressives who complained that they were being thwarted by an unelected official. They urged Democrats to forge ahead regardless. The party did not.
Mr. Thune has said repeatedly he would not overrule the parliamentarian if her decisions prevent Republicans from shaping the reconciliation bill to their liking. He dismissed complaints that the move on the California pollution law did anything to weaken the filibuster, which he vowed to protect. He also offered a prediction.
“I suspect Democrats are trying to use this situation as cover to justify abolishing the filibuster the next time they’re in charge,” he said. “I think they think that they can make dismantling the Senate filibuster a lot more palatable by claiming, however mendaciously, that Republicans attacked it first.”
He may be right about the backlash. Democrats accused Republicans of escalating the filibuster fight by taking it beyond nominations to legislation undermining California’s clean air law.
In the grand tradition of the Senate, they will want to get even at their first opportunity.
“Democrats are in the minority today,” said Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California. “But Democrats will be in the majority again someday. Maybe later, maybe sooner. We will certainly not forget what happens here today. History will not forget.”
Carl Hulse is the chief Washington correspondent for The Times, primarily writing about Congress and national political races and issues. He has nearly four decades of experience reporting in the nation’s capital.
The post The Filibuster, a Staple of the Modern Senate, Is on the Ropes appeared first on New York Times.
