Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Supreme Court

Elena Kagan's Warning to Progressives

The liberal justice wants the Supreme Court’s harshest progressive critics to chill out.

Damon Root | 8.4.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Elena-Kagan-8-3 | Emily Alff - CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/Envato
(Emily Alff - CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/Envato)

The U.S. Supreme Court is seemingly under fire right now from every political direction.

From the right, President Donald Trump has spent the last year pestering, bullying, and lambasting the Court, including launching repeated attacks against two of his own judicial appointees for daring to rule against him.

Meanwhile, from the left, progressive activists are apparently gearing up to launch another big political push in favor of court packing, judicial term limits, and other measures designed to strip the Court's conservative justices of the 6–3 majority they now command over the bench.

Is anybody willing to say even just one kind word for the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted?

You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Enter Justice Elena Kagan. At first glance, Kagan may appear to be the progressive opposition's greatest legal champion. She has sharply dissented from many of the conservative legal movement's biggest SCOTUS victories in recent years, and she is now widely seen as the intellectual leader of the dissenting liberal bloc.

Yet Kagan is also working hard to distance herself from the Court's harshest progressive critics. You might even say that Kagan is now trying to warn those critics to chill out before their approach begins to backfire.

A recent example of such a warning occurred in late July when Kagan spoke to the annual 9th Circuit Judicial Conference in Washington state. As Josh Gerstein reported in Politico, Kagan devoted a notable chunk of her remarks to "rejecting claims that the high court's conservative majority is in President Donald Trump's corner."

"I don't see this as a court that is just like, 'We're just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does.' You know, quite the opposite," Kagan said. "I think that that is a bad rap."

As a prime example, Kagan pointed to the tariffs case, which Trump lost 6–3 and in which Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett both ruled against him. "Tariffs is probably the key policy issue for this president. I mean, something he campaigned on, he ran on, he cared an enormous amount about," Kagan said. "I don't think that there are all that many decisions in the recent times, where a court strikes down such an important policy to a sitting president."

Of course, the Supreme Court did strike down President Joe Biden's student debt cancellation plan in 2022, though it seems safe to say that Biden's loss in Biden v. Nebraska did not aggrieve him to anywhere near the same degree that the loss in Learning Resources v. Trump has maddened Trump.

Why is Kagan making such a point right now of defending her conservative colleagues against the "bad rap" that progressive critics have laid on them?

Kagan may be worried about where the left's political winds are blowing and what it means for the future independence of the judiciary. She may be concerned about a cadre of progressive activists who are sharpening their proverbial knives in the hopes of hacking and slashing until the Supreme Court is unrecognizable.

This newsletter's left-leaning readers may wonder, "What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't progressives use whatever national political power they manage to obtain to fundamentally transform the Court?"

Kagan may oppose that kind of partisan move against the Supreme Court for the same reasons why her recently retired liberal colleague Stephen Breyer opposed it. Namely, Kagan may agree with Breyer that court packing is a race to the bottom that will harm liberals and Democrats in the long run by destroying the Court's ability to ever act as any kind of meaningful check against an overreaching president, whether that president happens to be Trump or whoever comes after him.

The way things seem to be going, I would expect to hear more warnings along these lines from Kagan in the months and even years ahead. What remains to be seen is just how many progressive voters and politicians will be willing to hear her out.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Brickbat: Where in the World?

Damon Root is a senior editor at Reason and the author of three books, including A Glorious Liberty: Frederick Douglass and the Fight for an Antislavery Constitution (Potomac Books). His latest book is Emancipation War: The Fall of Slavery and the Coming of the Thirteenth Amendment (Potomac Books).

Supreme CourtElena KaganConstitutionDonald TrumpTariffsLaw & GovernmentCourtsProgressivesPolitics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (50)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. MasterThief   2 months ago

    Kagan isn't an idiot. She is an ideologue and partisan, but she tries to find a better rationale for what she wants than "because I feel like it." Sotomayor and KBJ are low intellect partisans. Root has also shown himself to be one of the progressives pushing the court.

  2. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

    Back to 'progressive'? I miss the days when we could call a spade a spade.

  3. mad.casual   2 months ago

    The liberal justice wants the Supreme Court’s harshest progressive critics to chill out.

    Has she tried telling them to calm down?

    1. Templeton Ferrari the 3rd (The Commentariat member formerly known as SCOTUS)   2 months ago

      Kavanaugh would be ideal for that.

      1. Thoritsu   2 months ago

        She wants them to chill out because the precedents against their totalitarian bullshit are going to come down harder if they don’t. Maybe even the RINO Roberts and Barrett will do something right.

  4. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   2 months ago

    The Democrat party has lost their way an has morphed into a socialist party. The Republican party is simply apathetic. The long term elected federal legislature is nearly 100% warmongers who are grifters intent on, not public service, but personal gain. The two major parties will lie, cheat, and steal in their quest to maintain power, 1st for their own self, 2nd for their party, and 3rd for the deep state. The public to not factor into the equation.

    Justice Elena Kagan is on the far left extreme of what the Democrat party once was, before it was captured by the socialists. She is aware that they have vastly exceeded what is acceptable. I would not be surprised if even Justice Elena Kagan becomes politically homeless with the current rate is insanity in the Democrat party.

    It's exceedingly bad when Trump's narcissistic version of the Republican party is more rational and realistic than the new Democrat party.

    While I abhor Trump and his antics, his sucking up to the warmongers to the extent of getting involved in Israel's war against Iran and basically everyone else in their neighborhood. His continuation of presidential executive orders, war power acts, the Democrats are still a much larger risk. Trump is more of a risk, because he opens up a lane for these new socialists to gain power.

    For all the accusations and motives lobed against Trump, the reality is that these motives and tactics are much more likely to be implemented by these new Democrats dominated by socialists that Trump or anyone else in the Republican party.

    This is not an endorsement of Trump's narcissistic version of the Republican party or even the Republican party. Just a realistic assessment of the risk from the two totally unacceptable choices we find ourselves in.

    The Democrat party left me years ago, not because I changed my views very much, but because they changed so much and their true nature was revealed. The Republican party never struck my fancy very much as they seem too apathetic and more of a slower form of leftism. I've never been a member of any political party and never will be. My ballot will always have choices based on the individual and what kind of balance a community needs to keep single party dominance at bay.

    1. middlefinger   2 months ago

      eminent domain asset seizures and unrealized gains property taxes are perfectly acceptable unless it’s Kagans trust fund.
      Kagan “What Me, you’re going after MY trust”. “You’re not supposed to seize MY assets dammit I’m a progressive- but Trump”

    2. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      Unfortunately the choices you will always be offered on the ballot will not be based on personality but, rather, on which candidate each party elite chooses to run for office. After being elected, the party elite will continue to control how they represent their districts through party discipline and rewards except for a very few renegades.

      1. See.More   2 months ago

        [...] except for a very few renegades.

        And I'm not entirely convinced that those aren't plants, but designed parts of the whole apparatus.

        Bread and Circuses. The political theater is just another circus.

      2. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

        This is exactly how Dems got Hillary, when they all wanted Bernie. DNC picks who gets to run, not the peasants.

        1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

          If the dems really wanted Bernie, he would have beat her in the primary.

          1. JFree   2 months ago

            15% of Dems at the convention were superdelegates. True party establishment (members of Congress and DNC) who put their thumb on the primary scale at the beginning of the primaries (to force other establishment type candidates out of the race so that votes aren't split), the end of the primaries (ok games are over time to unite), and in conservative/swing states (to prevent a wild-eyed maverick from destroying the bottom of the ticket).

            The D voters in primaries are mostly playing a rigged game and Hillary started out with 90% of those superdelegates. Those superdelegates are in place precisely to prevent an extreme candidate like Sanders and it has worked ever since the system was put in place to prevent another McGovern in 1972.

            The primaries are basically a professional wrestling contest. To get media ratings and excitement for the party activists. Those activists then become important for the election itself after Labor Day. The problem is that those superdelegates do a good job of winnowing out anyone who might be controversial - but they don't screen for who has herpes or leprosy or may be dead.

            1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

              There were 4,051 earned delegates and 714 superdelegates.

              In earned delegates, Hillary had 2,220 to Sanders 1,831.
              If Sanders would have kicked Hillary's ass in the primary, the superdelegates would not have mattered. Exclude the superdelegates and Hillary was still in the lead

              https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

              1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

                JFucked is a low-watt bulb.

    3. Fats of Fury   2 months ago

      I disagree. Republicans want to maintain their elected office but don't want power and seem to do everything they can to piss off their voters and get back to being the minority, They'll still lie, cheat, and steal but under less scrutiny.

  5. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

    Trump should announce he's going to expand SCOTUS to 13. The left will cry foul.

    They are not interested in a better SCOTUS, they are just upset with the current make up because it's not in their favor.

    1. Zeb   2 months ago

      Yeah, if there was a left/liberal majority, the Dems would probably be back to acting like 9 is sacred and never to be altered.

    2. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      I do have to admit that over time the Republicans have been much more reluctant to break traditional "rules" for temporary political advantage than the Democrats have been (e.g. "the nuclear option") but with the civil "cold war" going on now heating up I don't trust the self-restraint of either party any more.

    3. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

      Historically, there has been more liberals than conservatives by population (not territory). Conservatives are better served with smaller numbers, which is why they never want to increase the number of people in a group. If we suddenly had a 100 member SCOTUS, the chances of conservative getting their way in things drops measurably.

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

        Historically the definitions of liberal and conservative changes.

        Let's be honest. The liberals would not agree to expanding the court if they dominated the court and the conservatives suggested it.

      2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

        If you think 13 on the court is a good idea. Should Trump nominate 4 more?

        1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

          Neither. I've been warming up to the Brennen opinion to stop political shenanigans. Frankly, I find it quite fair and it would prevent most stunts around electing SCOTUS while at the same time giving a fixed term limit.

          edit: Opinion vs plan. It wasn't their plan.

          https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/overlooked-idea-fixing-supreme-court

  6. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    No mention of her sammich making abilities.

    1. Fats of Fury   2 months ago

      Who's she gonna make sammiches for? Her cat?

      1. Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   2 months ago

        Cats, plural.

  7. jonnysage   2 months ago

    Liberals who want to limit the courts power are right, even if for the wrong reasons.

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

      Are you daft, none of them want to limit its power, just its makeup. They want to increase its power - at least until the other branches are safely in DSA hands. These are the people cheering on Boasberg and other rogue District Judges issuing nationwide injunctions in the face of settled SCOTUS cases.

    2. Zeb   2 months ago

      What powers of the court do you think need to be limited, and how? I really don't see a lot of leftists wanting to limit the courts power. Packing the court is never about limiting power. Demanding that the court deliver their preferred policies on things like abortion or political speech is not limiting power. Quite the opposite.

    3. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      The problem with the Supreme Court has rarely been with the scope of its Constitutional power but, rather, mostly with its refusal to follow the clear meaning and original intent of the Constitution. When the Supreme Court has abused its power it has almost always been by legislating from the bench in order to further a social "progress" agenda, creating new "rights" where there were none, and granting new government authority where there was none before. They have failed to strike down unconstitutional government scope enhancements and "interpreted" phrases in the Constitution to mean their exact opposite.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Recently, they've also sat back and permitted lower courts to ignore their rulings, which is a problem.

        Packing the court will simply encourage the Right to ignore their rulings as they will cease being legitimate.

    4. Sylvie1   2 months ago

      It is Democratic Socialists, who are NOT liberal, who wish to subordinate the judiciary to Congress, as well as abolishing the Senate and the presidency.

  8. EarlG   2 months ago

    Good article Damon, thanks for presenting that side. I have been preaching the same thing to my liberal friends for months, they do not listen, but rather are driven by their "feelings".

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

      Driven by their indoctrination.

      It's the Feelings they have been told to have.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        I disagree. It is impossible to "indoctrinate" a thinking human being. If they are indoctrinated, it's because they want to believe what they're told and the propaganda gives them the support they need.

        1. See.More   2 months ago

          [...] It is impossible to "indoctrinate" a thinking human being[...]

          I disagree.

          Your assertion may be true when speaking of rational (i.e. thinking) adults. But it is absolutely possible to indoctrinate the immature before they learn reason.

          For Example: See the masses that blindly "followed the science" and "believed the experts" on COVID policy precisely because they were indoctrinated in public schools and liberal colleges to "think" with feelings and accept logical fallacy (appeal to authority) as a substitute for reason.

        2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

          A thinking human being? Define that.
          I dare say many on the left are incapable of actual thinking. For example, a thinking person would not call something that requires a subsidy, affordable.

          1. See.More   2 months ago

            [...] For example, a thinking person would not call something that requires a subsidy, affordable.

            Or a man that cuts his dick off a woman.

    2. Templeton Ferrari the 3rd (The Commentariat member formerly known as SCOTUS)   2 months ago

      Your liberal friends are a lost cause. Instead, give them pamphlets on Canada’s socialized euthanasia program, which features same day service. Be sure to impress upon them that it’s for the best and a great way to reduce their carbon footprint.

  9. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

    These are the same jokers that gave the president carte blanche in Trump v United States ... and I'm supposed to believe that they are not "in the pocket" and that I should 'chill out'.

    No Ma'am.

    1. damikesc   2 months ago

      Specifically define "carte blanche" in your eyes.

      1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

        " Under President Joe Biden, the U. S. Attorney General appointed a special federal prosecutor to investigate former President Donald Trump’s actions related to the January 6, 2021, assault on the U. S. Capitol. The appointment was made pursuant to regulations that freed the prosecutor from standard supervision by the Attorney General, in order to minimize the possibility of political influence. Jack Smith, who was appointed, indicted Donald Trump on several charges related to his attempts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election. Trump immediately challenged the indictment, asserting that the U. S. Constitution provides presidents with complete immunity – even after leaving office – from criminal prosecution for crimes committed in office through their official acts.

        The consensus view among scholars, and official position of the Department of Justice (DoJ), has long been that a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. But it is fair to say that few scholars, or federal judges on lower courts, held the view that former presidents were immune from criminal charges after leaving office for crimes committed while in office. While disagreements among U. S. legal scholars on many questions of constitutional law are nearly as stark as political disagreements among the polarized U. S. electorate, presidential immunity was not one of those questions. Prior to this case, few scholars on the left or right saw a plausible case for an interpretation of the Constitution that provides broad criminal law immunity for former presidents.

        The U. S. Supreme Court, however, did. In Trump v. United States, the Court concluded that a former president enjoys complete immunity from prosecution for the exercise of “core constitutional powers” while in office, and a strong presumption of immunity for “all his official acts” – including those “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility” – whether pursuant to constitutional or statutory authority. A former president lacks immunity only for private, non-official acts. Yet even for such crimes the Court erected barriers that make prosecution difficult, most notably that evidence of official acts cannot be used to prove crimes committed through unofficial acts. "
        (Emphasis, mine.)

        https://www.law.virginia.edu/node/2202121

        1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

          ...January 6, 2021, assault on the U. S. Capitol..."

          That's spelled, "protest", fuckwad.

        2. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

          I don't listen to grey boxes.

          1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

            You don't listen to sense or logic either, you should give it a try sometime.

  10. Rick James   2 months ago

    "I don't see this as a court that is just like, 'We're just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does.' You know, quite the opposite," Kagan said. "I think that that is a bad rap."

    Like, totally the like, intellectual progressive like... voice and stuff.

    1. middlefinger   2 months ago

      Yeah like, as soon as we abolish the senate, we can like have like a progressive like court and everything.

      *(As she calls her wealth manager and under the radar moves the trust to a Kagan family office in Switzerland)*

  11. Agammamon   2 months ago

    >from the left, progressive activists are apparently gearing up to launch another big political push in favor of court packing

    The right is lambasting, peppering, and bullying though.

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      And pouncing... you forgot pouncing.

  12. Clipton   2 months ago

    Damon mispoke: He wrote "this newsletter's left leaning readers" when he meant to write "this left-leaning newsletter's readers..."

  13. Sequel   2 months ago

    I would argue that labelling advocates of court-packing as "progressives" is incorrect. Historically, such advocacy traces back to conservatives in the FDR era.

    It is more accurately classified as a symptom of rage politics with tactical political appeal but zero strategic value. Both American political parties are temporarily disabled by the same problem.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Cops Used AI Surveillance To Detain an Innocent Texas Driver. His Lawsuit Just Got the Program Struck Down.

Autumn Billings | 9.30.2026 5:12 PM

Trump Wants AI Companies To Police Themselves. His FTC Isn't Waiting.

Tosin Akintola | 9.30.2026 4:45 PM

Trump Orders Mosquitoes and Rats Out of the District of Columbia

Ronald Bailey | 9.30.2026 4:30 PM

Why Is Seattle Keeping Her From Cleaning Up Trash?

Joe Lancaster | 9.30.2026 4:15 PM

The FDA Promises To Streamline the Dauntingly Complex Rules for Approving Nicotine Products

Jacob Sullum | 9.30.2026 4:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reason's July 4 Special!

For America's 250th, Get 2 Years of Reason for $17.76

Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.

Subscribe to Reason