Kagan Says Supreme Court Rulings Weaken Democracy Before Midterms

With the November midterm elections approaching, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warned on October 20 that the court's conservative majority has weakened American democracy through decisions affecting voting rights, election maps and campaign finance. Speaking at Catholic University's law school in Washington, D.C., she argued that the rulings have intensified political polarization and reduced the effectiveness of the electoral system.

Kagan, one of the court's three liberal justices, directed her criticism at several major decisions, including a 2019 ruling that barred federal courts from intervening in cases challenging partisan gerrymandering. She also condemned decisions limiting protections under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and rulings that struck down campaign finance restrictions.

Kagan said the court had failed to adequately consider how its decisions would affect the political system and democratic institutions.

"Part of the reason why the court got it wrong was a kind of lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions," Kagan said.

She argued that the combined effects of the decisions extend beyond individual cases and influence how elections operate nationwide.

"I do think in all these areas the court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works and has created a democracy that does not work as well as it should," she added.

The 2019 ruling has allowed partisan redistricting disputes to proceed largely without federal judicial intervention. Kagan said both major political parties have exploited the situation to draw legislative maps favoring their own candidates.

"Both parties have been engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of doing these partisan gerrymanders," Kagan said.

Several states have redrawn congressional districts ahead of the November 3 midterm elections to increase their respective majority parties' electoral advantages. Texas initiated a new round of redistricting, followed by other states, including California, according to NBC News.

Kagan warned that districts designed to favor one party can reduce electoral competition and push candidates toward ideological extremes because primary elections become more decisive than general elections.

She also criticized the growing influence of political contributions following Supreme Court decisions that weakened campaign finance restrictions. Kagan said the amount of money flowing into campaigns has become a source of concern for voters.

"I think you know 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.

Her criticism extended to a ruling this year that increased President Donald Trump's control over federal agencies established by Congress to operate independently of political interference. Kagan questioned the consequences of concentrating executive authority in the presidency.

"There is a danger of one president being able to ride roughshod over all the other institutions of government and over the people," she said.

Despite her objections to the court's conservative direction, Kagan rejected claims that the justices routinely approve Trump's agenda. She pointed to decisions in which the administration lost, including its attempt to impose sweeping tariffs.

"I do think it's a bum rap," Kagan said when addressing the accusation that the court simply follows the president's wishes.

She nevertheless described the court as "deeply conservative" and expressed concern that its ideological composition has made consensus more difficult. Kagan said a more balanced court had previously encouraged compromise by making it less certain that any ideological faction could secure its preferred outcome.

She recalled the period after Justice Antonin Scalia's death, when the court operated with eight justices as Senate Republicans declined to consider President Barack Obama's nominee to replace him. Kagan said the resulting uncertainty encouraged restraint on major disputes and helped the institution maintain legitimacy.

"The court had a kind of legitimacy," she said. "And when the court has a kind of legitimacy of that kind, it helps to create a stable country."

Kagan's remarks came as debate over the court's structure and political influence continued ahead of the midterms. Some Democrats have advocated expanding the court or imposing term limits, although both proposals would face substantial political and legislative obstacles.