Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan under fire for flip-flopping on curbing judge power

The Supreme Court just slammed the brakes on rogue district judges, and Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent is raising eyebrows.

The New York Post reported that in a 6-3 ruling, the court clipped the wings of lower courts, stopping them from issuing nationwide injunctions that grind a president’s agenda to a halt. Conservative CNN pundit Scott Jennings didn’t mince words, calling out Kagan’s flip-flop with a verbal haymaker.

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled to limit district court judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions, a move that reshapes how presidents can govern.

This decision, cheered by conservatives, ensures one judge can’t derail an entire administration’s policies. It’s a win for accountability, but the liberal dissenters aren’t happy.

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, voted against the majority. Her dissent stands out, especially since she once criticized these same injunctions. Back in 2022, Kagan wasn’t shy about slamming their overuse—funny how the tune changes when the White House flips.

Historic Ruling Reshapes Judicial Power

The court’s decision marks a seismic shift in judicial oversight. District judges can no longer play emperor, issuing sweeping orders that freeze national policies. This ruling hands a lifeline to presidents battling activist courts.

Scott Jennings, on CNN’s “Saturday Morning Table for Five,” tore into Kagan’s inconsistency. “‘It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy,’” Jennings quoted Kagan from 2022. He smirked, noting her sudden fondness for those same injunctions now.

Jennings didn’t stop there. “Some of these folks are hacks,” he quipped, jabbing at Kagan’s apparent double standard. The conservative pundit’s zinger landed hard, framing the dissent as political theater, not principle.

Kagan’s 2022 remarks, made at a Northwestern University law school talk, are now her Achilles’ heel.

She argued then that a single judge shouldn’t halt national policies for years. Fast-forward to 2025, and her dissent sings a different song, leaving conservatives crying foul.

“It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks,” Kagan said in 2022. She added, “And leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.” Jennings gleefully used her own words to paint her as a hypocrite.

CNN host Abby Phillips noted that nationwide injunctions have plagued both parties’ presidents. From Obama to Trump, these judicial roadblocks have sparked bipartisan gripes. Yet Kagan’s dissent suggests she’s picking sides based on who’s in power.

Trump Benefits From Court’s Decision

President Trump, in particular, has felt the sting of these injunctions. In his second term’s first five months, at least 25 national injunctions targeted his policies on spending, education, and deportations. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a shield for his agenda.

Jennings called the decision a “great day” for Trump. “I’m glad they went ahead and fixed it,” he said. He argued it’s wrong for one judge to “act like a king or a monarch” and block an elected president.

The ruling doesn’t just help Trump—it sets a precedent for future administrations. No longer can a single judge wield outsized power to freeze national policy. It’s a return to checks and balances, not judicial overreach.

Kagan’s dissent has fueled a broader debate about judicial impartiality. When a justice’s stance seems to shift with the political winds, trust in the court takes a hit. Her 2022 clarity makes her 2025 dissent look like a partisan dodge.

Conservatives see this as a victory against activist judges who weaponize injunctions. The left, meanwhile, argues it limits courts’ ability to check executive power. Both sides agree: The stakes are sky-high.