Liberal Justice Elena Kagan stated Thursday that the U.S. Supreme Court, while conservative, does not function as a mere rubber stamp for President Donald Trump. Speaking to lawyers and judges at the 9th U.S. Circuit in Bellevue, Washington, Kagan noted that the court has, at significant moments and on major issues, acted to check the executive branch.
While the court has largely ruled in favor of the Trump administration in many cases, including those concerning immigration and regulatory authority, Kagan pointed to key decisions where the president's objectives were not met. These included rulings that rejected Trump's broad tariffs and his attempts to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.
"Is this court very conservative? Does it do a bunch of things that are out of the playbook of the conservative legal movement that I think are deeply wrong? You know, yes," Kagan acknowledged. "But is this court the kind of puppet for the current administration? I think definitely not."
Recent years have seen historic lows in public trust for the Supreme Court, with critics suggesting political motivations behind the justices' decisions. Trump himself has publicly criticized justices who ruled against him. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in May, remarked that the institution risked being perceived as political after the court's decisions on a Louisiana redistricting case and the Voting Rights Act.
Chief Justice John Roberts has previously pushed back against the notion that justices are "political actors," attributing such perceptions to misunderstanding. Roberts had joined the court's liberal justices in some significant cases, such as those involving birthright citizenship and tariffs.
Kagan also touched on the court's adoption of its first code of ethics in 2023, which occurred amidst scrutiny over undisclosed gifts and trips received by some justices. She expressed support for establishing a committee of retired judges to enforce the code, though she noted that opinions differ among the justices on its enforcement and no final decisions have been reached.
Reflecting on a notable moment from the past term, Kagan described the experience of Trump attending oral arguments for a case concerning his birthright citizenship order. Trump was the first sitting president to attend such proceedings. Kagan characterized his presence as largely a "non-event" for the justices, noting he sat in a section designated for members of Congress and was not acknowledged by the court. She suggested that Trump might not return, observing the lack of fanfare compared to presidential appearances in other contexts.