Kagan warns Supreme Court rulings are destabilizing American democracy

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan argued that recent decisions by the conservative-majority high court are destabilizing democracy, stating the institution is not working "as well as it should." The liberal justice made these remarks during a closed discussion at Catholic University's law school in Washington, D.C., where she spoke with law professor Joel Alicia, a former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito.

The conversation took place weeks after the Supreme Court began its new term, during which it is expected to rule on major cases regarding gun rights and state election integrity laws. The timing also precedes the midterm elections by less than two weeks, a period marked by political maneuvering over congressional maps. President Donald Trump and Republican state lawmakers have pushed for new maps designed to favor Republicans and bolster their chances of maintaining House control, while Democratic-led states have responded by redrawing their own maps, sparking ongoing lawsuits.

Kagan identified the 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause as the start of a "race to the bottom." In that decision, which she dissented from, the Court barred federal courts from invalidating maps solely because they unfairly favor one political party. Kagan contended that this ruling deprived "masses of citizens" of their "rights to voting equality." She suggested that the influx of gerrymandered maps is driving people away from the center toward the extremes, making an already polarized country even more so.

The justice also criticized rulings from the previous term, including the decision limiting campaign finance restrictions and the ruling that made it more difficult to draw majority-minority congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act. Kagan attributed some of these errors to a "lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions." She stated that the Court has blinded itself to the deleterious effects of its rulings on the political system, creating a democracy that functions poorly.

Regarding campaign finance, Kagan referenced her dissent in the previous term's decision that struck down federal limits on coordinated spending by state and national political parties. She argued those limits were necessary to prevent wealthy donors from bypassing direct contribution caps, warning that removing them allowed a political party to become an "alternative checking account" for a candidate. Kagan noted that Americans view money chasing political candidates as a nightmare and are correct in that assessment.

Appointed to the court by President Barack Obama in 2010, Kagan argued the institution was in a better position when there was greater ideological balance. She recalled a period when it was unclear whether the court could push through any single party's program, noting that no one believed the court was in the pocket of any one group. This perceived legitimacy, she said, helped create a stable country.

Kagan disputed the notion that the conservative-leaning bench merely approved every action taken by President Trump. She cited recent high court rulings that rejected restrictions on birthright citizenship, tariffs, and mail-in voting limits imposed by Trump. Kagan observed that this is why the president sometimes has "not very nice things" to say about the court's decisions and some of her colleagues.