Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated on Saturday that despite the court’s conservative leanings, it is not merely a "rubber stamp" for former President Donald Trump’s administration. Speaking to an audience of judges and lawyers from the 9th U.S. Circuit in Bellevue, Washington, Kagan emphasized that the court has exercised independent judgment, particularly in significant cases where it has checked executive power.

While the Supreme Court has generally ruled in favor of the Trump administration across a broad range of issues, including upholding key immigration policies and expanding executive authority over federal regulatory agencies, Kagan highlighted notable exceptions. The court rejected Trump’s efforts to impose sweeping tariffs and to rescind birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. These decisions demonstrated, in her view, the court’s willingness to push back against the executive branch when warranted.

Kagan acknowledged the court’s conservative majority and expressed disagreement with some of its rulings that align with conservative legal principles. "Is this court very conservative? Does it do a bunch of things…that I think are deeply wrong? You know, yes," she said. However, she firmly denied that the court functions as a merely partisan entity aligned with the current administration.

Public trust in the Supreme Court has declined sharply in recent years, with critics accusing justices of allowing political considerations to influence their decisions. President Trump has vocally criticized justices who have ruled against him, escalating tensions around the court's perceived impartiality. In May, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberal members, commented following a decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act and struck down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana, warning that the court risks being seen as political.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has occasionally sided with the court’s liberal justices on contentious issues including birthright citizenship and tariffs, has defended the judiciary’s independence. He has consistently rejected assertions that the justices act as political actors, describing such perceptions as a misunderstanding of the court’s role and motivations.