Skip to content
Sign in
Law & Justice · North America

Elena Kagan says Supreme Court rulings harm democracy and elections

Justice Elena Kagan said the Supreme Court has failed to account for how its decisions affect elections, voting rights and political spending. She linked the problem in part to the court’s 2019 ruling on partisan gerrymandering, which allowed the practice to continue without federal court intervention.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 6 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 1 of 6 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 11 entries
6 outletsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Mostly CenterL 0 · C 4 · R 1 · 1 unrated
Updat3 graphic: North America
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • Elena Kagan warned that Supreme Court rulings are harming American democracy (per newsone.com, Fox News, abcnews.com).
  • Kagan said the court had “blinded itself” to the harmful effects of its rulings on how the political system works (per newsone.com).
  • Kagan said the decisions had produced a democracy that “doesn’t work as well as it should.” (per newsone.com).

The brief

Justice Elena Kagan warned that Supreme Court decisions are damaging American democracy, saying the court has not adequately considered their effects on elections, voting rights and money in politics. NewsOne reported that she made the remarks Tuesday while speaking at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C.

Kagan said the court had “blinded itself” to what she called the harmful effects of its rulings on the political system. She also said the decisions had created a democracy that “doesn’t work as well as it should.” The comments were her criticism of the court’s approach and its decisions, rather than an account of a new ruling.

She singled out the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision that allowed extreme partisan gerrymandering to continue without federal court intervention. Kagan described that decision as a major contributor to the problem she was addressing. Her remarks connected the court’s treatment of election-related disputes with the wider consequences she sees for the political system.

The warning came as states were redrawing congressional districts ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. NewsOne said the redistricting had intensified the contest over which party would control the House of Representatives.

The account did not identify particular states or describe specific maps; it placed the dispute over district lines alongside Kagan’s concerns about election rules and voting rights.

Kagan’s comments also addressed the influence of money in politics, which she grouped with elections and voting rights as areas where she believes the court has not weighed the real-world consequences of its rulings. Her stated concern was the combined effect of those decisions on how the political system functions.

The immediate political setting described in the account is the redrawing of congressional districts before the midterms. The account does not identify any response from Kagan’s conservative colleagues or describe a change to the court’s rulings. Kagan’s remarks instead put the consequences of those decisions at the center of a warning about the health of American democracy.

Why it matters

  • Kagan’s concern focuses on voters and the political system: she named elections, voting rights and the influence of money in politics as areas affected by Supreme Court rulings.
  • The court’s 2019 partisan-gerrymandering decision is a specific mechanism Kagan identified as contributing to the problem: it left the practice able to continue without federal court intervention.
  • States were redrawing congressional districts before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, with control of the House of Representatives at stake.

What to watch next

  • Whether states complete congressional district redrawing ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
  • Which party wins control of the House of Representatives in the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
  • Whether Kagan’s conservative colleagues respond to her criticism of the court’s rulings.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
6 source articles · 6 unique outlets
Outlet political mix: Mostly Center· 4 Center · 1 Right · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: US/Canada 50% · Global 33% · Other 17%
Outlet political mix
Mostly Center
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
4 outlets
1 outlet
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
6 unique outletsDominant coverage: US/Canada
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among Center-rated outlets (4 of 5 rated sources); comparatively few Left-rated outlets have published on the event.
How we measure coverage

2 sources are from a wire service (AP, Reuters, AFP or Bloomberg), whose reporting other outlets often republish.

How outlets' accounts compare

Updat3 does not yet have enough full reports to compare how outlets framed this story.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. The Constitution was ratified, establishing the federal judiciary in Article III.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. In *Marbury v. Madison* on February 24, 1803, the Court established judicial review of laws, making the judiciary a continuing check on actions by elected branches.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, prohibited denying the vote on account of race.
    Background · from our historical context
  4. The Voting Rights Act, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6, 1965, established federal protections against racial discrimination in voting.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. In *Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission* on January 21, 2010, the Court struck down restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions.
    Background · from our historical context
  6. Elena Kagan was sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  7. In *Shelby County v. Holder* on June 25, 2013, the Court invalidated the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula for requiring certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before changing election rules.
    Background · from our historical context
  8. The Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that claims of partisan gerrymandering were beyond the reach of federal courts.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  9. The Supreme Court set standards in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee that made some Section 2 challenges to state voting rules more difficult.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  10. In *Allen v. Milligan* on June 8, 2023, she joined the majority in upholding a ruling requiring Alabama to draw a second majority-Black congressional district under the Voting Rights Act.
    Background · from our historical context
  11. In *Moore v. Harper* on June 27, 2023, Kagan joined the Court’s rejection of the broad “independent state legislature” theory, which would have sharply limited state courts’ role in reviewing state election laws.
    Background · from our historical context

How we got here

In *Trump v. United States* on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court held that former presidents have absolute immunity for some official acts, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts; Justice Elena Kagan joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. In *Moore v.

Harper* on June 27, 2023, Kagan joined the Court’s rejection of the broad “independent state legislature” theory, which would have sharply limited state courts’ role in reviewing state election laws. In *Allen v.

Original sources

2 of 6 articles · Global · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.