Weeks before the midterm elections, Kagan on Supreme Court took center stage as Justice Elena Kagan offered a blunt assessment of American democracy, saying a series of high court rulings on election law have damaged how the system functions.
Speaking Tuesday at Catholic University, the Barack Obama appointee argued that the court’s majority has discounted real-world impacts in cases touching voting rights, campaign finance and public corruption. According to Kagan, that approach has helped produce a political system that fails to operate as it should.
“The court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effect of their rulings on how the political system works, and has created a democracy that does not work as well as it should,” she said.
Kagan on Supreme Court and election law
In recent years, Kagan has issued forceful dissents as the court curtailed judicial oversight of partisan gerrymandering, eased campaign finance limits aimed at curbing corruption, and narrowed protections under the Voting Rights Act. She said Tuesday that the current political climate shows those decisions were misguided.
Kagan described partisan gerrymanders as setting off a “race to the bottom” between parties, eroding voting equality and deepening polarization. She also faulted the court for missing chances to address quid pro quo corruption in money-and-politics cases. “The people of America look around this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare, and they’re right,” she said.
Referencing the court’s recent landmark ruling on the Voting Rights Act, Kagan noted the majority said it was unclear whether Black political representation would decline. She pointed to actions in the weeks afterward, when southern states moved to redraw maps that eliminated Black districts, as evidence that the concern was warranted. “If you think about what these opinions do, you kind of have an idea of why they’re wrong,” she said.
Checks on presidential power
Kagan also weighed in on executive authority, originalism and the court’s conservative tilt. She criticized rulings that, in her view, removed important checks on presidential power. At the same time, she underscored that the court has pushed back on significant executive initiatives, citing decisions involving proposed use of the National Guard to respond to protests and attempts to restrict mail-in voting ahead of elections.
“These were all things that were important presidential priorities,” Kagan said, adding that the court’s resistance explains harsh critiques from the White House at the time.
A conservative court and legitimacy
Despite occasional rulings against the current administration, Kagan said the Supreme Court remains “deeply conservative,” a notable shift from when she joined the bench 16 years ago. She said the court has advanced long-standing elements of the conservative legal agenda.
Kagan reflected on the year the court operated with eight justices after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. With no clear majority, she said the justices had to compromise more often, which enhanced public confidence. In her view, that period fostered legitimacy by forcing the court to listen closely across ideological lines and by dispelling the notion that it served any single party or interest.
Kagan concluded that restoring public trust requires decisions that recognize on-the-ground consequences, especially in the areas of voting rights, districting and money in politics, where the court’s choices directly shape the health of American democracy.
