Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s three liberals, took a swipe at her conservative colleagues on Tuesday, accusing the 6-3 majority of undermining American democracy and fueling political polarization by declining to police partisan gerrymandering.
Speaking Tuesday at the Catholic University of America’s law school in Washington, D.C., Kagan blasted conservative-backed rulings on congressional redistricting, voting rights, and campaign finance laws, arguing that the decisions have allowed political parties to manipulate election maps for partisan advantage.
According to Reuters, Kagan claimed the conservative majority had enabled what she described as a race to the bottom in congressional redistricting.
The Obama-appointed justice argued that the Court’s refusal to intervene in partisan gerrymandering disputes has contributed to an increasingly divided political landscape.
Kagan declared:
“Over the last couple of years especially, both political parties have been engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of doing these partisan gerrymanders, … making what I think is unfortunately a too polarized country even more so.”
Kagan went further, accusing the Court of disregarding the consequences of its own decisions.
According to the Associated Press, Kagan said the Court had blinded itself to the harmful effects its rulings have had on the American political system.
The remarks come as Republicans and Democrats engage in an increasingly bitter battle over congressional boundaries ahead of the November elections.
But there is a major constitutional issue at the center of Kagan’s complaint: Who should control America’s election maps, elected lawmakers or unelected federal judges?
Kagan’s criticism takes direct aim at the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause.
In that 5-4 ruling, the Court’s conservative majority determined that claims of excessive partisan gerrymandering present political questions that federal courts lack the constitutional authority and judicially manageable standards to resolve.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
The decision did not declare all gerrymandering legal or eliminate state-level restrictions on redistricting.
Instead, the majority concluded that the Constitution places primary responsibility for congressional election regulations with state legislatures and Congress, while leaving room for state courts to enforce state-law restrictions.
Kagan strongly disagreed, joining the Court’s liberal wing in dissent.
The ruling drew a crucial distinction between partisan gerrymandering and unconstitutional racial discrimination in redistricting, which can still raise federal constitutional questions.
Read the Supreme Court’s 2019 opinion here.
Kagan’s complaints were not limited to gerrymandering.
The liberal justice also criticized the Supreme Court’s recent decisions narrowing aspects of the Voting Rights Act and loosening restrictions on political campaign spending.
She argued that these rulings have weakened protections against political manipulation and made Americans increasingly cynical about the electoral process.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has taken a different position, emphasizing constitutional limits on race-based districting and First Amendment protections involving political spending.
Kagan also acknowledged that the conservative majority has ruled against President Donald Trump’s administration on major legal issues, including tariffs, birthright citizenship, and mail voting.
That acknowledgment complicates the familiar narrative that the conservative justices automatically side with the president.
The post Liberal Justice Elena Kagan Attacks Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority, Claims Their Rulings Are ‘Destructive to Democracy’ as Midterm Elections Loom appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.