Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Slams Conservative Majority Over Campaign Finance and Gerrymandering

Justice Elena Kagan criticised the Supreme Court's conservative majority over campaign finance, partisan maps and voting rights during an appearance at Catholic University's law school on Tuesday, two weeks before the midterms, according to The New York Times.

Speaking at the event, Kagan argued that the court's rulings had worsened political division and left the country with 'a democracy that does not work as well as it should.' Her remarks addressed election law, the flow of money into campaigns and the constitutional approach favoured by conservative justices.

The news followed a series of election-related decisions by the court's majority. Kagan, one of its three liberal justices, has written dissents in such cases before, but on Tuesday she assessed what she described as the broader effect of the court's record.

Supreme Court Rulings and Political Division

Kagan appeared alongside J. Joel Alicea, a former clerk to Justice Samuel Alito. She stated that the conservative majority had failed to confront the consequences of its decisions for the political system.

'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,' Kagan said. She linked that concern to campaign finance, partisan maps and voting rights.

Her intervention placed the court's election rulings at the centre of her criticism rather than focusing on one case. It also came as the country approached the midterms, a context that underscored the practical importance she assigned to those decisions.

Supreme Court Gerrymandering Decision in Focus

Kagan singled out the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling that prevented federal courts from hearing disputes over partisan gerrymandering. She dissented in that case and stated that its effect since then had been to encourage partisan map-drawing.

'Both political parties have been engaged in a race to the bottom' to draw maps favouring their own side, she said, calling the practice 'very destructive of our democracy.' The comments framed the issue as one affecting both parties, while identifying the court's 2019 decision as a pivotal moment.

The justice also argued that the court's campaign-finance decisions had loosened limits and created loopholes that enabled a surge in political spending. Her criticism did not rest solely on the scale of the spending but on how voters regarded its place in elections.

'The people of America look around this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare,' she said. 'And they're right.'

Supreme Court Originalism Debate and Trump Cases

Kagan also challenged originalism, the conservative legal philosophy that interprets the Constitution according to its meaning at the time it was ratified. She stated that 'The whole project' was 'kind of misconceived, and it's not a very good match with the Constitution we have.'

Yet Kagan rejected criticism that the court had yielded to President Donald Trump, describing that claim as a 'bum rap.' The Times reported that the court delivered Trump major victories last term on immigration and executive power, while also striking down his tariffs and blocking his attempt to end birthright citizenship.

Her account therefore separated her concern about the court's approach to election law from the assertion that it invariably ruled for Trump. The immediate dispute she outlined was instead over whether the court had properly assessed the democratic consequences of its decisions.