Kagan Blasts Court: Gerrymander Ruling Destroys Democracy

Justice Elena Kagan delivered sharp criticism of the Supreme Court's conservative majority during remarks at Catholic University Law School in Washington, D.C., stating the Court has blinded itself to the harmful effects of its rulings on how the political system works, creating a democracy that does not function as well as it should. She referenced the Louisiana v. Callais decision, which invalidated a proposed map adding a second Black-majority electoral district in Louisiana, saying it weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and led Republican-led states to redraw maps that reduce the electoral impact of Black voters; effects are already visible in Louisiana and Alabama, where districts allowing Black voters to elect their chosen candidates have been removed. Kagan also cited the 2019 *Rucho v. Common Cause* ruling, which prevents federal courts from blocking partisan gerrymanders, noting both parties have since engaged in a race to the bottom in drawing legislative maps, which she argued strips voting equality while pushing candidates toward political extremes and contributes to a polarized country.

On campaign finance, Kagan criticized the June *National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC* ruling that removed limits on political party spending coordinated with candidates, including for television advertising, saying she told the audience that many voters are disturbed by the amount of money chasing political candidates. She noted midterm ad spending has surpassed $10 billion, with billionaires pouring hundreds of millions into super PACs chiefly supporting Republican candidates in tight Senate races. Kagan also referenced a ruling that broadened presidential authority over independent agencies, eliminating safeguards for Federal Trade Commission members facing dismissal without cause; University of Chicago professor Aziz Huq said the decision increases the president's power to oversee subordinate officials. She warned such concentration of power poses a danger to other government institutions and the people, while noting the Court has occasionally pushed back on former President Donald Trump, including on tariffs, so it is not a rubber stamp.

Kagan said Congress might seek to enact nationwide statutes against partisan gerrymandering and restore Voting Rights Act protections the Court has narrowed, but any new legislation could face court challenges and potentially a presidential veto. She also reflected on her tenure, expressing nostalgia for the eight-justice period after Justice Antonin Scalia's death, which she said forced compromise and helped maintain the Court's legitimacy and national stability. She spoke about religious liberty, mentioning a case involving town meetings that included only Christian prayers, saying it sends a message about who feels included or excluded in a community, and identified her Jewish faith as an important part of her background and identity. A recorded portion of her remarks lasted 4:07. TIME reported the remarks as forecasters predicted the midterm election cycle would be the costliest in American history.

Original Sources: democracydocket.com, npr.org, ms.now, thehill.com, time.com, nbcnews.com, ua.news, washingtonpost.com

Category: Political

Keywords: america, columbus, dissent, gerrymandering, kagan, louisiana, money, obama, partisanship, politics, voting

The article offers no actionable information for a normal person, containing no clear steps, choices, instructions, or tools that a reader can use soon. It simply reports a justice's criticism without providing any guidance that a reader could act on, so it offers no action to take. Regarding educational depth, the article mentions the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering, and campaign finance decisions, but it does not explain how these systems work, why the rulings matter structurally, or how the numbers and classifications are derived. The information remains superficial and unexplained, so it does not teach enough for a reader to understand the topic meaningfully. For personal relevance, the event described is distant and does not affect a reader's safety, money, health, or daily decisions in a meaningful way. It affects only a small group in specific situations, and the article fails to connect to real life for the general reader, so its relevance is limited. Concerning the public service function, the article provides no warnings, safety guidance, emergency information, or anything that helps the public act responsibly. It merely recounts a political story without context or help, so it does not serve the public. On practical advice, there are no steps or tips an ordinary reader can realistically follow. The guidance is absent, and any implicit commentary is vague and unrealistic as standalone advice, so it does not help. Regarding long-term impact, the focus is on a single set of court rulings and the current news cycle. It offers no help with planning ahead, improving habits, making stronger choices, or avoiding future problems, so it contributes only to short-term discussion without enduring value. On emotional and psychological impact, the article uses strongly dramatic language such as "blinded itself", "gutted", and "nightmare". This can create fear, shock, or helplessness without offering any constructive way to process the information or respond, so it harms more than it helps. Checking for clickbait or ad-driven language, the piece uses exaggerated framing and selective emphasis to add narrative weight without substantive explanation. It overpromises on impact and relies on shock value to maintain attention, which adds no real substance. Identifying missed chances to teach or guide, the article presents important problems including gerrymandering, voting rights erosion, and money in politics, but fails to provide steps, examples, context, or a way for the reader to learn more. It leaves the reader with a sense of outrage but no pathway to understanding or action.

Even when an article offers no practical help, a reader can still protect their time and decision-making by applying a few universal principles. When distant political or legal news appears, first ask whether the event directly changes your own safety, income, expenses, or daily routines. If it does not, treat it as background context and set it aside rather than letting it create unnecessary urgency. If it does have potential personal impact, identify what you already know versus what is being claimed, and look for the original source of the decision, such as a court opinion, agency statement, or official regulation, rather than relying on commentary that frames the issue. Compare how different outlets cover the same event; this reveals which facts are emphasized and which are omitted, helping you form a more balanced view without needing expert knowledge. Finally, ask yourself what concrete decision you need to make today and whether the story provides any new information that would change that decision. If the answer is no, setting the story aside is a valid way to preserve your mental energy. These approaches rely only on general reasoning and common sense, require no external searches, and can be applied the moment any news story touches on concerns that might affect your life.

saying the Court has blinded itself to the harmful effects of its decisions on how the political system works. The phrase "blinded itself" uses a strong word to frame the majority as willfully ignorant. It makes the reader feel the Court is ignoring harm. No other view is given in the text.

gutted key parts of the Voting Rights Act and made it easier for states to gerrymander. The word "gutted" is a very strong word. It paints the ruling as severely damaging. The text does not describe the ruling's actual content or effects neutrally.

race to the bottom in gerrymandering, a practice she called very destructive of democracy. The phrase "race to the bottom" is a negative phrase. It suggests things are getting worse without proof. The language supports the idea that gerrymandering hurts democracy.

effectively deprive citizens of voting equality and push people toward the political extremes. The phrase "effectively deprive" states a clear harm. It frames gerrymanders as removing voting power. The excerpt offers no counter-explanation of mapmaking.

view the influx of money in politics as a nightmare. The word "nightmare" is a very scary word. It frames money in politics as frightening. The text does not present other sides of campaign finance debates.

one of three Democratic appointees on the nine-member bench and has consistently dissented as her conservative colleagues have rolled back voting rights protections over the years. The phrase "rolled back" implies undoing progress. It presents a one-sided picture of the Court's voting rights history. No neutral description of the justices' reasons is included.

Kagan’s public criticism introduces anger and frustration through statements such as “blinded itself to the harmful effects” and the use of strong words like “gutted,” “eviscerate,” and “race to the bottom” to describe the Court’s voting rights and gerrymandering decisions. These emotions appear throughout the excerpt, from her dissent in Louisiana v. Callais to her condemnation of the 2019 ruling, and they carry a clear intensity. Their purpose is to portray the majority’s actions as willfully damaging to democratic structures. A similar concern and worry about the health of American democracy emerges when Kagan notes that the Court’s decisions “weakened American democracy,” that voting rights are “foundational to the nation’s system,” and that gerrymanders “effectively deprive citizens of voting equality and push people toward the political extremes.” This concern is noticeable and serves to direct the reader’s attention to real outcomes, such as Southern states eliminating Black-majority districts, thereby inviting the reader to view the Court’s agenda as a tangible threat to fair representation. In addition, a strong fear and concern regarding campaign finance is articulated when Kagan says the public is right to view the influx of money in politics as a “nightmare” and as “money chasing candidates”; this emotion is very noticeable and functions to validate widespread public anxiety, framing the financial influence on elections as an urgent and alarming force that undermines democratic legitimacy. Together, these emotions shape the reader’s reaction by generating sympathy for Kagan’s role as a defender of voting equality, fostering worry about the Court’s long-term impact on democracy, and steering opinion toward the view that the current judicial course is harmful and in need of correction. The writer sustains this emotional effect through deliberate word choice and narrative structure. Repeated use of strong adjectives—“gutted,” “eviscerate,” “nightmare,” “blinded itself”—makes the feelings grow stronger and harder to ignore. Contrasting the protection of voting rights with the “race to the bottom” in gerrymandering sets up a clear divide between democratic integrity and partisan manipulation. Naming specific consequences, such as the elimination of Black-majority districts, grounds important points in observable events, while labeling justices as “Democratic appointees” versus “conservative colleagues who have rolled back voting rights protections” aligns the reader with a particular perspective. The closing statement that the political system is a “nightmare driven by money chasing candidates” serves as a strong final note that ties voting rights and campaign finance into a single warning, reinforcing the intended conclusion that the Court’s current direction opposes the nation’s democratic ideals.