Justice Elena Kagan Warns Supreme Court Rulings Are ‘Undermining Democracy’ and Voting Rights
In a pointed critique of her colleagues, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan has accused the court’s conservative majority of undermining American democracy and fueling political polarization. Speaking to students and faculty at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Kagan argued that a series of landmark rulings have fundamentally reshaped the electoral landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.
Kagan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, suggested that the high court has become disconnected from the practical consequences of its legal interpretations. “The court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effect of their rulings on how the political system works,” she said, adding that the conservative-led bench has effectively “created a democracy that does not work as well as it should.”
The Justice specifically highlighted several cases that have altered electoral maps, campaign finance regulations, and the scope of executive authority. These decisions, according to legal observers, have not only impacted the immediate midterm contests but may also dictate the long-term composition and functionality of the federal government.
One of the most significant points of contention for Kagan is the court’s recent handling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. She pointed to the April decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a case centered on whether Louisiana was required to draw a second congressional district with a Black majority. The Supreme Court eventually struck down the proposed map, a move Kagan described as an “evisceration” of the historic voting protections.
Following that ruling, several Republican-led states moved forward with redrawn maps that critics argue dilute the influence of minority voters. In both Louisiana and Alabama, districts where Black voters previously held the power to elect candidates of their choice were eliminated. Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, described the decision as one of the most damaging in the court’s modern history. Hasen predicted that the fallout from this ruling would be felt across several future election cycles as more states adopt similar map-drawing strategies.
Kagan also revisited the 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which determined that federal courts do not have the authority to block congressional maps on the basis of partisan gerrymandering. This ruling paved the way for states like Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida to implement maps that heavily favor one party over the other. Kagan argued that such gerrymandering strips citizens of their “rights to voting equality” and drives the electorate toward political extremes. The result, she warned, is a “too-polarized country” where the political center is increasingly marginalized by destructive map-making.
The influence of money in politics was another focal point of Kagan’s address. She expressed concern over the sheer volume of campaign spending, noting that many Americans view the current system of “all this money chasing all these political candidates” as a nightmare. Her remarks come during what is projected to be the most expensive election cycle in U.S. history, with more than $10 billion already funneled into various races.
A significant factor in this spending surge is a June 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. That decision removed previous limits on how much political parties can spend in direct coordination with their candidates, particularly on television advertising. The ruling has allowed billionaires and super PACs to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into tight Senate races, significantly boosting the resources available to candidates in the final stretch of the midterms.
Beyond the ballot box and campaign ads, Kagan criticized the court’s expansion of presidential power. She specifically cited the June ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which struck down protections that prevented the president from firing Federal Trade Commission commissioners without cause. Kagan warned that this expansion of executive control allows a president to “ride roughshod over all the institutions of government.”
Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago, suggested that the implications of the Slaughter decision extend into the realm of prosecutorial discretion. Huq noted that the ruling could allow for the use of executive authority to target political opponents, citing the Trump administration’s past investigation into Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar as a potential precursor to what greater presidential control over executive officials might look like.
While critics and some members of the court have called for reform, the path to legislative change remains steep. Even if control of Congress shifts in the upcoming midterms, any legislation aimed at curbing the court’s power or reversing its rulings could face a presidential veto. Overriding such a veto would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, a high bar in the current political climate. Some experts believe a meaningful legislative response to the conservative majority might not be possible until 2029 at the earliest.
In the interim, some suggest that Congress could use the Constitution’s Elections Clause to enact nationwide laws against partisan gerrymandering—an avenue Chief Justice John Roberts noted was still open in his Rucho opinion. However, legal scholars like Huq warn that any such reforms would likely end up back before the Supreme Court. Given the court’s current methods of interpretation, Huq expressed skepticism that legislative reforms would survive, describing the current situation as a “perilous point” for American constitutional democracy.
