On April 1st, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) made history by delivering the longest continuous Senate speech surpassing Strom Thurmond’s infamous 24-hour filibuster from 1957. Though Booker’s speech was not technically a filibuster, since it did not block legislation, it reignited national debate over the Senate’s tradition of the extended debate and the role of the filibuster in American governance. His marathon 25 hour address was a passionate critique of the current administration’s actions with policies affecting; social security, Medicaid, immigrants, veterans, public education, and foreign policy issues, demonstrating both the power and theatricality of prolonged Senate speeches. Though Booker’s stand captured headlines, it also served as a reminder of how the filibuster has evolved from a rare, physically demanding tactic to a routine tool of obstruction that shapes every major legislative battle today.
History of the filibuster
The filibuster was never an intentional feature of the U.S. Senate but rather an accidental byproduct of rule changes in the early 19th century. In 1806 Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the Senate’s previous question motion, a tool to cut off debate, was redundant leading to its elimination. This created a loophole— without a mechanism to force a vote, senators could indefinitely prolong debate. The first recorded filibuster occurred in 1837. The tactic remained rare until the late 19th and early 20th centuries when Southern senators began using it to block civil rights legislation.
The most iconic filibusters were grueling physical ordeals, requiring senators to hold the floor by speaking non-top without breaks for food, water, or even bathroom use. This theatrical tradition was immortalized in popular culture by films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where a lone senator fights corruption through an exhausting speech. However, in 1975, the Senate reformed its rules, introducing the “two-track” system, which allowed multiple bills to be debated simultaneously. This change effectively ended the need for around-the-clock
The most iconic filibusters were grueling physical ordeals, requiring senators to hold the floor by speaking non-top without breaks for food, water, or even bathroom use. This theatrical tradition was immortalized in popular culture by films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where a lone senator fights corruption through an exhausting speech. However, in 1975, the Senate reformed its rules, introducing the “two-track” system, which allowed multiple bills to be debated simultaneously. This change effectively ended the need for around-the-clockspeeches, as senators could now filibuster simply by declaring their opposition with no standing required.
Some of the most consequential filibusters have altered the course of American politics. Strom Thurmond’s 1957 marathon speech (which technically is still the longest single-person filibuster), was a desperate attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Though he failed, his 24-hour stand became a symbol of Southern resistance to racial equality. Similarly, in the 1960s, segregationist senators staged a record-breaking 60-day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the longest in Senate history. Their efforts ultimately failed, but the battle underscored how the filibuster could be weaponized to delay progress on urgent national issues.
The modern era
In more recent decades, filibusters have been used by both parties for high-profile stands. In 2013, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke for nearly 13 hours to protest the Obama administration’s drone policies, while Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) held the floor for 8.5 hours in 2010 to oppose extending Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. These speeches, though symbolic, drew public attention to contentious policies and demonstrated how individual senators could leverage Senate rules to force debate on overlooked issues.
The filibuster has evolved from a rare, dramatic tactic into a routine procedural hurdle that requires most legislation to clear a 60-vote threshold rather than a simple majority. This shift has drawn sharp criticism from reformers who argue it creates legislative gridlock, enabling a minority of just 41 senators to block widely supported measures on gun control, voting rights, and climate action. Defenders counter that the filibuster preserves the Senate’s deliberative nature, prevents rash policymaking, and maintains stability amid shifting political majorities. The growing tension has sparked calls for reform, particularly after Democrats eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations in 2013 and Republicans followed suit for Supreme Court picks in 2017. Current proposals range from reinstating the “talking filibuster” to creating issue-specific exemptions or lowering the closure threshold.
Cory Booker’s marathon speech highlighted both the potential value and limitations of extended debate. His physically demanding stand demonstrated how prolonged floor speeches can amplify issues and rally public support, contrasting sharply with today’s “silent filibusters” that require no actual debate. Yet if the modern filibuster persists as an invisible, frequently deployed obstacle, it will face continued criticism for enabling minority obstruction in what was designed to be a majority-governed system. The ongoing debate reflects deeper questions about whether the Senate can balance minority protections with effective governance in an era of intense polarization.
As the Senate grapples with its identity in an increasingly polarized era, the filibuster remains at the center of a fundamental tension between protecting minority voices and ensuring democratic governance can function. Cory Booker’s speech served as a reminder of the Senate’s potential for meaningful debate but also underscored how far the institution has strayed from its original deliberative purpose. Whether through reform, abolition, or a return to the filibuster’s more demanding origins, the path forward will shape not just legislative outcomes, but the very ability of American democracy to address its most pressing challenges. The question is no longer whether the filibuster serves its intended role, but whether the Senate can adapt its rules to meet the demands of a nation that can no longer afford gridlock.