In August 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet, changing the solar system's official planet count from nine to eight, a decision that remains contested among scientists and the public.
The IAU's definition includes three criteria: orbiting the Sun, having sufficient mass for a round shape, and clearing its orbital neighborhood. Bodies beyond Neptune that met the first two criteria but not the third, including Pluto, were reclassified.
Philip Metzger, director of the Stephen W Hawking Centre for Microgravity Research and Education at the University of Central Florida, argued that the IAU definition makes the concept of a planet unusable in scientific work. He said the requirement to clear a neighborhood is ambiguous because the ability to do so depends on the surrounding objects.
Kevin Schindler, historian at Lowell Observatory, described Pluto's status as a symbol of underdog appeal, noting that many people view the former planet as an underdog figure.
Laurel Kornfeld, a writer and amateur astronomer, said the vote was wrong and has organized a “Pluto Resistance” campaign.
In April, Jared Isaacman, NASA administrator appointed under the Trump administration, told a congressional committee that he supports reconsidering Pluto’s status, saying he is “in the camp of Make Pluto a Planet Again.”
Planetary scientists who favor a geophysical definition point to Pluto’s mountains, evidence of recent geological activity, and possible subsurface oceans as indicators of planet-like characteristics. Paul Byrne, associate professor at Washington University, said a broader definition that includes many bodies would be acceptable, comparing the number of planets to the 1,025 officially recognized Pokémon species.
Opponents of reinstatement argue that a primarily geophysical definition would also classify large moons such as Earth's Moon as planets, which they consider inconsistent with existing practice. Astronomer Mike Brown, who led the discovery of Eris, said the Moon already meets the round‑shape criterion and therefore would be a planet if Pluto were, a point he calls “the Man Who Killed Pluto.”
Metzger suggested the 2006 IAU vote may not have followed required procedures, implying the decision could be invalid, while Brown denied any political motive, saying critics opposed the outcome.
Kornfeld said the demotion has led to curricula that teach only eight planets, which she argues limits scientific literacy. Metzger added that another vote would be less useful now and that the scientific method should guide future classification.
The debate over Pluto's classification continues, with scientists emphasizing the need for a definition grounded in evidence rather than procedural decisions.