Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan might need a neck brace after the whiplash she just gave herself.
Back in 2022, Kagan was pretty clear: she didn’t like the idea of one lone district judge slamming the brakes on national policy. At an event at Northwestern’s law school, she said, and this is a direct quote:
“It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
That’s not exactly vague. She sounded more frustrated than a dad trying to assemble IKEA furniture without the instructions.
Fast forward to 2025, and guess what?
That same Justice Kagan just voted for letting a district judge block a Trump policy nationwide. The case? Trump v. CASA, Inc. The issue? Trump’s executive order about birthright citizenship.
The Court ruled 6–3 to rein in these so-called nationwide injunctions – finally – but Kagan, along with Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.
You read that right. Two years ago, Kagan thought it was wrong for one judge to block a president’s agenda. This year, she was all for it. So, what changed?
Well, according to critics, it wasn’t the law – it was the president.
See, in 2022, nationwide injunctions were mostly being used to block Biden’s policies. Kagan didn’t like that.
She even called out “forum shopping,” which is when activists file lawsuits in friendly courts hoping for a win.
During Trump’s term, the go-to spot was the Northern District of California. For Biden, it shifted to Texas.
Kagan said back then that this game-playing wasn’t healthy for the courts.
“It’s not that there’s a political tilt,” she claimed – though most folks probably rolled their eyes at that one – but that it was messing with fairness and consistency.
But in Trump v. CASA, Kagan suddenly got cold feet about limiting those same broad powers she once questioned.
Her dissent warned the Court’s ruling might let unconstitutional policies go unchallenged. Funny how that wasn’t such a big worry in 2022.
Conservative media had a field day.
PJ Media called it out as pure hypocrisy. The Daily Caller ran with it too. X lit up with people quoting Kagan’s own words right back at her, wondering if she even remembered what she said.
One post joked, “Apparently Kagan was against nationwide injunctions before she was for them – as long as they hit Trump.”
Ouch.
Of course, some folks tried to defend her. They argued she wasn’t really changing her mind, just being more “nuanced.”
According to that take, Kagan’s 2022 gripe was about how injunctions were used, not whether they should exist.
But let’s be honest – that’s some pretty fancy footwork for what looks a lot like political convenience.
Here’s the problem: the law should mean the same thing no matter who’s in the White House. If it’s wrong for one judge to block a president’s policy coast-to-coast, it should still be wrong even if that president’s name is Trump.
Thankfully, the majority on the Court didn’t go along with Kagan’s flip-flop.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, saying that lower courts don’t have the authority to issue sweeping nationwide rulings. They’re supposed to resolve disputes between actual parties, not act like mini-Congresses.
That matters.
Because letting one judge halt an entire administration’s policy – without any real limits – isn’t just bad law. It’s dangerous.
It turns every policy battle into a legal ambush, where a single courtroom in San Francisco or El Paso suddenly gets to call the shots for the whole country.
In plain English? That’s not how our system is supposed to work.
Kagan’s sudden shift raises bigger questions. If judges are going to start bending their views depending on who’s in power, that’s not judicial independence. It’s partisanship in a robe.
Look, we all have moments we wish we could take back. But if you’re going to slam the idea of nationwide injunctions one year, then vote to keep them two years later – at least admit what changed.
Otherwise, it just looks like you’re playing politics.
In the end, the Court got it right. They put a leash on runaway judges. And while Justice Kagan might try to spin her dissent as thoughtful or case-specific, the rest of us saw what happened.
Because when your own past words make a better argument than your current vote, maybe it’s time to take your own advice.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
