Justice Kagan Says Court's Election Rulings Hurt Democracy, Rejects 'Rubber Stamp' Claim

2.0 · 11d ago · US

The Facts

  • Justice Elena Kagan spoke on Tuesday at Catholic University's law school in Washington, D.C., in a discussion with law professor Joel Alicea. ✓2 · NBC News, Fox News
  • Kagan said the court's rulings on partisan gerrymandering, the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance have harmed the political system; she said the court 'has blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings' and has created a democracy that 'doesn't work as well as it should.' ✓2 · NBC News, Fox News
  • Kagan cited the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause ruling, in which she dissented and which barred federal courts from invalidating maps for partisan gerrymandering, as the start of a 'race to the bottom.' ✓2 · NBC News, Fox News
  • Kagan criticized last term's ruling striking down federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties with their candidates; in dissent she said it let a party become an 'alternative checking account' for a candidate. ✓2 · NBC News, Fox News
  • Kagan rejected claims the court is a rubber stamp for Trump, citing cases the president lost, including his sweeping tariffs; Fox News also lists birthright citizenship restrictions and mail-in voting restrictions. ✓2 · NBC News, Fox News
Dive deeper · 6 more factsShow less
  • Kagan said part of the reason the court got it wrong was 'a kind of lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions.' Fox News only
  • Kagan criticized the Louisiana v. Callais ruling, a 6-3 decision that made it harder to draw majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Act; her dissent called it the latest chapter in the majority's 'now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.' Fox News only
  • Kagan criticized this year's ruling giving President Trump greater control over independent federal agencies, warning of one president being able to 'ride roughshod' over other institutions. NBC News only
  • Kagan called originalism 'misconceived' and 'not a very good match with the Constitution we have.' Fox News only
  • Several states, starting with Texas at Trump's urging and including California, have redrawn congressional maps ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. NBC News only
  • Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zack Smith told Fox News Digital the court's job is to apply the law as written and that Kagan's disagreement does not make the rulings illegitimate. Fox News only

Context

Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal wing, criticized recent rulings by the conservative majority on voting rights, gerrymandering and campaign finance during an appearance at Catholic University's law school. She said they harmed the functioning of the political system.

Kagan also said the court is not simply aligned with President Trump, pointing to cases in which he lost. The remarks came less than two weeks before the midterm elections, amid ongoing mid-decade redistricting fights.

Conflicting Reports

  • Fox News (first article) describes the event as a discussion at the law school; Fox News (second article) describes it as a closed discussion before faculty and students.
  • Fox News lists birthright citizenship, tariffs and mail-in voting as Trump losses cited by Kagan; NBC News (as previously reported) cites tariffs as the example.

How the Agent Panel Scored This

Independent AI personas each scored importance 1–10; the story's score is a trimmed mean (highest and lowest votes dropped). Vote spread: 0.

2 Global Affairs Analyst This story reports only a justice's public criticism and rhetoric about past rulings, with no new concrete legal or policy action, so it falls in the 1-3 band for statements and reactions.
2 Business Analyst This story reports only a justice's public criticism and rhetoric about past rulings, with no new concrete action, ruling, or regulatory change, so it falls in the 1-3 band for statements and reactions.
2 Critical Reader This story reports only a justice's public speech and criticism of past rulings, with no new concrete action, ruling, or measurable change, so it falls under statements and rhetoric scoring 1-3.
2 Science & Tech Analyst This story reports only a justice's public criticism and rhetoric about past rulings, with no new concrete court action, so it falls in the 1-3 band for statements and reactions.
2 Informed Citizen This story reports a justice's critical speech and dissent-based commentary with no new concrete ruling or action, so it falls in the statements-and-criticism category scoring 1-3.
2 News Editor This story reports only a justice's speech and criticism of past rulings, with no new concrete action by the court or government, so it scores in the 1-3 rhetoric range despite the important underlying topic.
2 Policy Expert This story reports a Supreme Court justice's public criticism and rhetoric about past rulings without any new concrete governmental action, so it falls in the 1-3 range for statements and reactions.

Sources (3)

← All stories