As usual it is the realists who made the objections from their rigid realist paradigm, i.e. reality is independent of the human conditions.
Historically, this [objection] was initiated by Helmholtz who argued that Kant’s theory of space is untenable in the light of the discovery of the non-Euclidean geometries3.
His line was later forcefully supported by Paton, Russel, Carnap, Schlick and probably at most Reichenbach, who famously criticized Kant’s conception of space on the basis of a complex analysis of the visual a priori which he took to underlie Kant’s doctrine of geometry4.
Wes Alwan
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/ ... intuition/
Here are some defenses on the issue;
1. Kant on Euclid: Geometry in perspective, Stephen Palmquist
In short, I will argue that, far from assuming a kind of absolute validity for the classical theories of Euclid, Aristotle, and Newton, Kant ties their views to a well-defined perspective in such a way that their validity is actually limited, and that in so doing he actually prepared the way (sometimes with surprising foresight) for modern developments in geometry, logic, and physics.
https://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/cgi/view ... ext=rel_ja
2. Why Non-Euclidean Geometry Does Not Invalidate Kant’s Conception of Spatial Intuition
Everyone once in a while I run across the opinion that non-Euclidean presents a serious problem for Kantian epistemology. While I've rebutted this notion before, it's common enough that I thought I'd have another go at explaining why it's a misconception.
Wes Alwan
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/ ... intuition/
3. KANT’S THEORY OF SPACE AND THE NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRIES
Boris_Grozdanoff
Recently, Parsons refers to this line as “the most common objections to Kant’s theory of space”5 and concedes that Kantian could still accept some more primitive geometrical properties (than those provided by the 5th postulate of Euclid’s Elements, for example) to be known a priori even if he abandons the claim that in specific propositions of the Euclidean geometry can be known a priori.
Though this is an attempt to salvage some part of the geometry doctrine I do not think that this is in the spirit of the Transcendental Aesthetic and also, I believe that it would be insufficient for Kant’s purposes.
My aim in this paper will be defend the view that Kant’s doctrine of geometry can survive criticism based on appeal to the non-Euclidean geometries.
http://www.personal.ceu.hu/students/03/ ... etries.PDF
...................
There are loads of more articles out there defending Kant against any critical impact from non-euclidean geometry.
One hint is,
Non-euclidean Geometry does not have any critical nor significant impact on Kant's concept of space or else Kant would not have polled regularly as one the Greatest Western Philosophers of all Times within the modern philosophical community.