Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan took aim at her own court's conservative majority on Tuesday, telling an audience of law students that a string of recent rulings on voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance has made American democracy work less well. The comments landed just two weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections that will decide control of both chambers of Congress.
Kagan delivered her critique during a conversation at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law. The school's Center for the Constitution and Catholic Intellectual Tradition is directed by Professor J. Joel Alicea, a former clerk to conservative Justice Samuel Alito, according to CNN. As KFOX reported, Kagan argued the court's 6-3 conservative majority has enabled partisan redistricting, cut limits on campaign financing and narrowed voting protections, interpreting the Constitution according to what she described as a yearslong conservative pattern.
The Louisiana Ruling at the Center of the Fight
Kagan singled out an April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, in which the court invalidated Louisiana's congressional map and narrowed the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, per Democracy Docket. Kagan told the Catholic University audience that several Southern states moved within weeks of that decision to redraw congressional maps aimed at eliminating Black-majority districts, the outlet reported.
Hoodline previously covered how the ruling reverberated regionally: the Alabama map fight paused after the Supreme Court vacated a lower court's order requiring a map with two majority-Black districts, and Louisiana lawmakers redrew the state's 6th Congressional District into Republican territory in May 2026; Cleo Fields later decided not to seek reelection. Republican-led states redrew congressional districts aimed at securing a GOP House majority, pushing out Democratic incumbents who had gained seats under Voting Rights Act protections.
Campaign Finance and a Decades-Old Gerrymandering Precedent
Kagan also referenced the court's June 30 decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, which held 6-3 that federal limits on coordinated political party spending violate the First Amendment, opening the door to unlimited coordinated spending between party committees and candidates, according to Ballard Spahr. The ruling rejected the prior holding in Colorado II, the firm noted. Conservative candidates have benefited from the relaxed fundraising rules, per the facts gathered in this reporting.
Revisiting the court's 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which closed federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims, Kagan warned that the ruling touched off what she called a “race to the bottom” by both parties that has pushed voters toward ideological extremes, as reported by The Washington Post. The court's original Rucho opinion held that partisan gerrymandering was not something federal courts could police.
Kagan Defends the Court's Independence From Trump
Despite her sharp dissents, Kagan told the Catholic University audience that the conservative majority is not reflexively aligned with President Donald Trump, pointing to major rulings where the administration lost, according to SuaraGarut. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump's tariff and birthright-citizenship policies. On June 29, the court denied the government's application to remove Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.
Trump has publicly criticized the court for not going far enough in reinterpreting the Constitution, saying in a September Truth Social post that the court lacked the courage to make America great again, and claiming the tariff and birthright citizenship rulings cost the United States trillions of dollars and damaged citizenship processes, according to the facts compiled for this story. The court separately ruled in August that Trump could continue construction of a White House ballroom despite the destruction of the historic East Wing and rising project costs, a decision hardline Republicans celebrated as a rejection of activist lower-court judges. Mark Paoletta said the ruling could begin reining in what he called lawless tactics.
Public Views of the Court
Liberal Americans have accused the court of empowering GOP governance, while Republicans have pointed to the high-profile rulings against Trump as evidence the bench isn't simply doing the president's bidding.
Kagan's remarks, made with the midterms two weeks away and control of Congress on the line, follow months of redistricting battles playing out across multiple states. Hoodline has also reported on the court's third-country deportation order, where Kagan joined Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent — part of a broader pattern of friction between the court's liberal and conservative wings heading into Election Day.
