Filibuster and reconciliation in the United States Congress

A filibuster is a procedural tactic used in the U.S. Senate to extend debate and delay or block a vote on a proposal. Senators may filibuster by speaking at length, introducing multiple motions, or using other methods to slow proceedings. The effect of a filibuster is to postpone or prevent a final vote on the matter under consideration.

Historically, filibusters required senators to hold the Senate floor through extended speeches. In the 1970s, the Senate adopted a two-track system that allowed the chamber to continue other business while a filibuster was pending. This change enabled what is sometimes called a silent or stealth filibuster, in which senators can delay action by signaling an intent to filibuster rather than continuously speaking. This practice has made filibusters more frequent by reducing the need for extended floor debate.

Usage

The U.S. Senate operates under the principle of unlimited debate. Senate rules allow any senator, or group of senators, to speak for as long as they wish on an issue. In theory, this could allow debate to continue indefinitely. To limit debate, senators can invoke cloture, a procedure that ends discussion on a matter and moves the Senate to a vote. Invoking cloture requires the approval of three-fifths of all senators—typically 60 votes. Without cloture, debate may continue, effectively delaying or blocking a vote on a proposal.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has noted that a filibuster does not depend on the use of specific Senate rules and that determining whether one is occurring “is always a matter of judgment.” Filibusters can vary in scope and intensity, and many modern filibusters take place without extended speeches on the Senate floor. Because the two-track system allows other business to continue while a filibuster is pending, some are effectively conducted through procedural objections or threats rather than lengthy debate. This makes it difficult to precisely compare the number of filibusters across different time periods.

The U.S. House of Representatives does not permit filibusters. Debate in the House is generally limited by rule, and a simple majority can vote to end debate on a measure and proceed to consideration or a final vote.

Types of filibuster

In the U.S. Senate, a filibuster is a procedural tactic to extend debate and thereby delay or block a vote on a measure. There are two principal contexts in which the Senate uses the filibuster:

• A legislative filibuster is directed at items on the legislative calendar, such as proposed statutes.

• A nomination filibuster is directed at judicial or executive‐branch nominations.

According to the Senate's website, “Today, filibusters remain a part of Senate practice, although only on legislation. The Senate adopted new precedents in the 2010s to allow a simple majority to end debate on nominations.”

Meaning

The term filibuster originates from the Dutch word vrijbuiter, meaning freebooter or pirate, according to the U.S. Senate Historical Office. The word entered English through the French flibustier and Spanish filibustero and was originally used to describe someone who stole treasure or engaged in piracy.

The term later came to describe political obstruction. According to the Senate Historical Office, by the late 19th century, the word filibuster was used in the United States to characterize legislators who delayed or blocked action on legislation. The first recorded use of filibuster to describe a legislative delay tactic occurred in 1890.

Background

Early history

Article I of the United States Constitution empowers each chamber of Congress to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” In April 1789, both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate adopted joint rules. Those rules permitted a simple majority to call for a vote without further debate on the previous question, but they did not prevent a member from speaking indefinitely. In his Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1801), Vice President Thomas Jefferson instructed under Section 17, Rule 9, that “[n]o one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously.”

In 1806, the Senate removed the rule that allowed a simple-majority motion to end debate, thereby establishing a basis for unlimited debate. As scholar Sarah Binder notes, the removal of that rule “made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate.” Over time, senators exploited the unlimited-debate format, culminating in what is often cited as the first “real” Senate filibuster in 1837.

The adoption of cloture

During World War I, filibusters by a group of senators delayed consideration of legislation to arm American ships. In response, the Senate adopted a rule in 1917 allowing debate to be ended (cloture) with a two-thirds vote of senators present and voting. That threshold remained in effect until 1949, when it was changed to a two-thirds vote of the full Senate. In 1959, the Senate returned to the earlier model of two-thirds of those present and voting.

The two-track system

In the 1960s, southern Democratic senators filibustered major legislation, including during debate over what became the Civil Rights Act. In 1972 the Senate implemented a “two-track” system under Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, which enabled the chamber to consider other business while a filibuster was pending. In 1975 the Senate reduced the cloture threshold to three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn (typically 60 votes). Some scholars argue the changes may have contributed to the rise of silent or stealth filibusters, where no senator holds the floor indefinitely but a filibuster is implied by procedural delay.

The nuclear option

The nuclear option, also known as the constitutional option, is a procedure that allows the Senate majority reinterpret or change its rules by a simple majority vote. The first invocation of the nuclear option occurred in November 2013, when Majority Leader Harry Reid used it to allow judicial nominations to be approved with a simple majority rather than needing 60 votes. It was again invoked in April 2017, under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with the Senate confirming a United States Supreme Court nominee by simple majority after eliminating the 60-vote threshold. In April 2019 the Senate applied the nuclear option to reduce post-cloture debate on executive and lower-court nominees from 30 hours to 2 hours. In 1917, Senator Thomas J. Walsh (D) proposed using the constitutional option for the first time. Changing Senate rules in this way was later nicknamed the nuclear option because senators have said that it should only be used as a final option. According to The Wall Street Journal, "Former Sen. Trent Lott (R) was the first to use it in this context, and the name stuck for several reasons. First, changing the Senate rules breaks longstanding precedent. Republicans—and the Democrats previously—know that when the majority party becomes the minority party, as inevitably happens, that party would be stripped of most of its leverage, thanks to its own rule change."

Reid invoked nuclear option, 2013

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) invoked the nuclear option in the Senate. The option was used to change the vote requirement for executive nominee confirmations to be considered on the floor. Prior to the rule change, senators could filibuster until a cloture motion requiring 60 votes was passed in the chamber. The nuclear option changed the requirement to a simple majority. The threat of the nuclear option occurred in many previous sessions of Congress, but none had invoked the procedure. The nuclear option was invoked in response to Senate Republicans blocking the nomination of three D.C. Circuit Court judges. The rule change passed by a vote of 52-48, with Carl Levin, Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor being the only Democrats to vote in opposition. According to the Congressional Research Service, of the 67 times between 1967 and 2012 that the filibuster was used on a judicial nominee, 31 were during the Obama administration. The change in rules did not apply to legislation or Supreme Court nominees.

McConnell invoked nuclear option, 2017

On April 3, 2017, Senate Democrats announced that they had a sufficient number of votes to sustain a filibuster against the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. In anticipation of an expected filibuster, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) indicated that he was prepared to restrict the use of filibusters on Supreme Court nominations. Essentially, McConnell said that Republicans would change the rules to allow a Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed with 51 votes instead of 60. On April 6, 2017, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on Gorsuch's nomination. McConnell then raised a point of order that the cloture vote should be upheld under the precedent established in 2013 and applied to all nominations. That precedent called for a simple majority vote to close debate on all nominations. That point of order was denied. McConnell appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was whether to retain the 60-vote threshold for ending debate on Supreme Court nominations. A 52-48 majority along party lines voted against retaining the 60-vote threshold to end debate on Supreme Court nominations, opting instead for a simple majority being required to end debate—the nuclear option. Under the new threshold, the Senate subsequently voted to end debate on Gorsuch's nomination. Gorsuch was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court the next day.

Senate limits post-cloture debate on presidential nominees, 2019

On April 3, 2019, the Senate voted to change the body's precedent and reduce post-cloture debate allowed on executive nominees below the Cabinet-level and federal district court nominees from 30 hours to 2 hours. Two separate votes on executive nominees and judicial nominees passed 51-48. All but two Senate Republicans—Susan Collins (R) and Mike Lee (R)—voted for the changes, while all Senate Democrats who voted opposed the changes. To enact the changes, the Senate used the nuclear option rather than changing its standing rules.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) said his caucus pursued the change due to obstruction by Senate Democrats. He said, "The all-encompassing, systematic nature of this obstruction is not part of the Senate’s important tradition of minority rights. It is a new departure from that tradition. And this break with tradition is hurting the Senate, hamstringing our duly elected president, and denying citizens the government they elected." He also said that many Democrats privately supported the change and would favor it if they controlled the White House.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) criticized the change, particularly with regard to judicial nominees. He said, “Two hours for a lifetime appointment is unacceptable. Two hours for a lifetime appointment with huge influence on people’s lives is unacceptable. It’s ridiculous.”

Senate Democrats also said McConnell pursued similar tactics while in the minority. Sen. Michael Bennet (D) said, “[McConnell] seems to have completely forgotten the Obama administration. He led the most famous blockade that’s ever happened in the Senate. And that was the blockade of Merrick Garland … it was shameful.”

McConnell responded by criticizing Senate Democrats for using the nuclear option to lower the cloture threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes in 2013. He said, “I said at the time I didn’t like the way it was done. And I thought maybe the other side would rue the day they did it. Amazingly enough, about a year and a half later I’m majority leader. Funny how these things change, isn’t it?”

Ballotpedia analysis

On April 5, 2019, Ballotpedia released an analysis of the changes in debate rules and the possible effects on federal judicial vacancies.

To see our full analysis, click here.

Senate changes precedent to allow for group confirmations of certain executive branch officials, 2025

On September 11, 2025, Senate Republicans voted to change chamber rules governing the nomination process for certain types of presidential nominees. The vote was 53-45, along party lines.

This change in Senate precedent allowed the chamber to vote by simple majority to confirm a slate of nominees in a group, rather than having to conduct individual confirmation votes for each nominee. The Senate could use this new precedent to confirm ambassador nominees and nominees to work in executive departments and agencies. Previously, bloc nominations required a 60-vote threshold. Cabinet-level and judicial nominations were excluded from this rule change and still had to be confirmed individually.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R) said the following regarding his choice to use the nuclear option: "I made it clear that one of my priorities was to get the Senate functioning again, and the Senate can’t function effectively as a legislative body with the confirmation process in the state that it’s in right now."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) criticized the precedent change, saying, "This move by Republicans was not so much about ending obstruction, as they claim; rather, it was another act of genuflection to the executive branch ... to give Donald Trump more power and to rubber-stamp whomever he wants whenever he wants them, no questions asked."

Cloture motions in history

Below are two data tables presented to show the frequency with which the Senate has taken action on cloture. The data are sorted into the number of motions filed for cloture, the number of votes on cloture held, and the number of times that cloture was invoked, meaning that 60 senators agreed to pass the cloture motion and end debate, effectively killing an ongoing filibuster.

The Senate adopted rules for cloture beginning in 1917. The data in this chart below show Senate actions on cloture from the first Congress in which the cloture rule was adopted (the 65th Congress) to the 117th Congress. All data are taken from the U.S. Senate website.

This line chart depicts the same data above. Consistent with the changes made by Senator Mansfield described above, Senate actions on cloture have increased significantly since the 1970s, indicating that the attendant use of the filibuster has increased during that time.

Filibusters and reconciliation

See also: Budget reconciliation in U.S. Congress

Budget reconciliation is a legislative process that can be used to override the filibuster and expedite the approval of a package of legislation in Congress that changes spending, revenues, or the debt limit. Budget reconciliation bills have limits on debate so they require a simple majority (51 votes) instead of the three-fifths majority (60 votes) usually needed in the Senate to bring bills to a vote.

The reconciliation process occurs if Congress passes a budget resolution for the fiscal year that gives reconciliation instructions. The provisions of reconciliation bills are crafted by committees or added through amendments. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the budget resolution limit the content of the reconciliation bill. Those limitations are enforced through the Byrd Rule.

History and use of reconciliation

See also: Uses of budget reconciliation in Congress

In total since 1985, Congress has passed 27 reconciliation bills. Twenty-three (23) of the bills were signed by the president and enacted. Four of the reconciliation bills passed both chambers of Congress but were vetoed by the President.

Since 1985, 83 points of order were raised against provisions of the 27 reconciliation bills that made it through both chambers of Congress, and 73 of them (88%) were sustained by the presiding officers, removing the provisions.

Click here to read more.

Reconciliation usage

See also: Budget reconciliation in U.S. Congress

Reconciliation was created through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The data below indicate the total number of reconciled bills that were passed out of the Congress since budget reconciliation was adopted. In four instances, the reconciled bill was vetoed by the president. President Bill Clinton (D) vetoed three of those bills and President Barack Obama (D) vetoed the fourth. None of the vetoes were overridden by the Congress. All other reconciled bills were signed into law by the president.

Timeline

Below is an abbreviated timeline of events related to the filibuster, cloture, and reconciliation.

• 1806: Senate rules were modified to allow for unlimited debate.
• 1837: The first filibuster was used in the Senate.
• 1856: The Senate formally adopted its rule for unlimited debate.
• 1873: An attempt to reform the filibuster rule failed.
• 1883: An attempt to reform the filibuster rule failed.
• 1890: An attempt to reform the filibuster rule failed.
• 1917: The Senate adopted the cloture rule. The rule required a two-thirds vote of senators present to vote in order to invoke cloture.
• 1919: Cloture was invoked for the first time.
• 1949: The Senate modified its rules to require a two-thirds vote of the entire chamber in order to invoke cloture.
• 1957: U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (D) staged the longest filibuster in U.S. history—24 hours and 18 minutes—to delay a vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
• 1959: The Senate returned to its previous rule requiring two-thirds of senators present to vote in order to invoke cloture.
• 1972: The Senate adopted a two-track system for legislation, permitting the Senate to consider other legislation while a filibuster was ongoing.
• 1974: Congress passed the Congressional Budget Act, introducing provisions for budget reconciliation.
• 1975: The Senate modified its rules to reduce the number of senators present to vote needed to invoke cloture from two-thirds to 60.
• 1980: Congress used reconciliation for the first time to pass the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980.
• 1985: Senator Robert Byrd (D) introduced a point of order to strike extraneous matter from reconciliation bills.
• 1990: The Senate permanently adopted the “Byrd rule” for reconciliation bills.
• 2005: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) threatened to remove the use of filibusters for federal judicial nominees except for nominees to the Supreme Court. A bipartisan group of senators called the Gang of 14 reached an agreement to move nominations forward without invoking this maneuver, which had been dubbed the nuclear option.
• 2013: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) modified Senate rules to prohibit the use of filibusters on federal judicial nominees except for nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• 2017: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) modified Senate rules to prohibit the use of filibusters on any federal judicial nominees, including nominees to the Supreme Court.

See also

• Budget reconciliation in U.S. Congress
• United States Senate
• Supermajority
• United States Congress
• Cloture

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• U.S. Senate: Filibuster and Cloture
• U.S. Senate: Cloture Rule

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox