All posts tagged "sonia sotomayor"

Supreme Court feud just put Trump's plan in jeopardy: legal analyst

A spat between two Supreme Court justices is putting Trump’s plans in jeopardy, a legal expert noted.

Justice Samuel Alito looks poised to stay on as a counterweight to Justice Sonia Sotomayor after their "wacko interaction" spilled out into public view, Michael Popok said during a recent episode of the Unprecedented podcast.

Sotomayor read her "powerful dissent" to Alito's majority opinion on an asylum case, Popok noted.

"So Alito was done reading his summary of his decision, and next up was Sotomayor, and she read big portions of her dissent, and really, I mean, accused the court of being heartless, of comparing it to that famous ship that was turned away by numerous countries filled with Holocaust survivors," Popok explained.

Popok and his guest host, legal analyst Dina Doll, also brought up that Trump is hoping Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas will step down, opening the way for him to add a new conservative justice or two before the midterms.

"Honestly, I thought after that interaction, maybe Alito will not step down this summer because I think he sees himself as this necessary person, probably, to combat Sotomayor right now," Doll said. "It's just the ego in him."

Doll continued, "Somebody like that thinks that they need to be in charge, that nobody else can carry the mantle."

Trump Sweats as Alito Refuses to Leave Supreme Court Early?! | Unprecedented Podcast by Legal AF

Read on Substack

'People will die': Justice pens dire dissent as Supreme Court backs Trump on asylum

The Supreme Court's conservative super majority on Thursday sided with the Trump administration in a 6-3 ruling, and in a sharp dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor described the consequences of turning away asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Following the ruling in Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security v. Al Otro Lado, Sotomayor spoke from the bench and reminded the high court of a historical moment in 1939 when more than 900 Jewish refugees who were attempting to flee persecution in Nazi Germany boarded the M.S. St. Louis in Hamburg, Germany, and were turned away from Cuba and the United States during the Holocaust. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also joined the dissent.

"The ship docked in the Havana harbor for days, but the Cuban Government refused to allow the fleeing passengers offboard," Sotomayor wrote. "The ship then sailed near the Miami coastline, but the U.S. Government also turned them away in part because the immigration laws at the time had strict country quotas and the relevant quota was already filled for that year. The ship sailed to Canada and was again turned away. It eventually returned to Europe. Tragically, over 500 of the refugees that had attempted to flee were trapped in Western Europe under German control, and over 250 of them died during the Holocaust. Most of them were 'murdered in the killing centers of Auschwitz and Sobibór' and 'the rest died in internment camps, in hiding, or attempting to evade the Nazis.'"

Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision would have serious repercussions.

"The majority ignores the statutory context and history, not to mention the longstanding position of the Executive Branch, all of which show that any noncitizen arriving at our doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold," Sotomayor wrote. "Because the Court today blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands, I respectfully dissent."

Sotomayor also issued a warning.

"The consequences of today’s decision are predictable," she wrote. "More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not. More people will be forced to walk along the U. S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them. More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. Because this is neither what Congress said nor what its words permit, I respectfully dissent."

Supreme Court 'coming apart' as justices lob 'chilling' public attacks: analysis

The Supreme Court's infighting has spilled out into public view, and it paints an ugly picture of the judicial body, according to a political analyst.

The New York Times opinion columnist Jesse Wegman believes recent activity from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas highlights the trouble brewing inside the Supreme Court. Wegman wrote, "We’ve come to expect diatribes against entire swaths of the country from the Trump administration, but to hear a Supreme Court justice do it is somehow more chilling.

"All Supreme Court justices are at risk of huffing their own fumes. It comes along with the lifetime appointment, the endless cosseting and flattery. It’s easy for them to forget that they play a unique role in American life, and are held to a higher standard of behavior than the rest of us.

"These days, the Supreme Court sometimes feels as if it is slowly coming apart, the victim of both its own members’ arrogance and the hardball politics that Senate Republicans used to pack the court with right-wingers over the past decade."

Thomas, earlier this month, delivered a scathing critique of progressivism during a speech at the University of Texas Austin Law School, characterizing the political philosophy as fundamentally incompatible with American constitutional principles.

Thomas argued that progressivism seeks to replace the foundational premises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself. "Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government," Thomas stated. "[Progressivism] holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government."

Sotomayor also made headlines earlier this month for a scathing put-down of Kavanaugh. Speaking at the University of Kansas School of Law earlier this month, Sotomayor said Kavanaugh "probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour" in response to a question about a recent case concerning immigration law.

In the case, Kavanaugh argued that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents should be allowed to conduct what's known as "roving stops" to check someone's immigration status.

Sotomayor publicly apologized to Kavanaugh a week later. In her statement, Sotomayor said, "At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague."

Supreme Court 'private tensions' growing during 'politically explosive' session: report

The Supreme Court's internal disagreements have spilled out into a public display, according to a report profiling the ongoing tensions.

The Supreme Court has experienced significant internal friction in recent weeks, marked by heated disputes between liberal and conservative justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has publicly criticized Justice Brett Kavanaugh over his handling of immigration cases and civil rights protections. Sotomayor condemned Kavanaugh's concurrence supporting immigration stops based on ethnicity and language, calling his reasoning insufficient.

Sotomayor would later apologize publicly to Kavanaugh, whose office did not issue a response to the initial criticism or apology to follow. Analysis from Wall Street Journal columnist James Romoser reads, "As the Supreme Court barrels toward the final stretch of a politically explosive term, its private tensions are surfacing in public.

"A series of blunt remarks by three justices in recent days has offered a glimpse into strained personal relationships, ideological divides and internal alarm over how the court is making key decisions.

"Such candid airing of friction is unusual at the court, where personal discord is normally kept behind closed doors and legal disagreements are rendered in the formal language of written dissents.

"The remarks all come as the court is under pressure both from its caseload and from President Trump, who has frequently disparaged the justices in recent weeks."

Despite the frayed internal relationship for the Supreme Court, there is a sense that the judicial body will still prove to be a problem for Donald Trump.

The New York Times's Ross Douthat said, "So, most likely there’ll be some victories for Trump, but there’ll be two really large defeats — birthright citizenship and tariffs. Both are very big issues. Birthright citizenship is more important to the Republican base or the conservative base. Tariffs are obviously close to Trump’s own heart.

"A year ago there was a lot of conversation, including on this show, about what it would take for Trump to defy the court. In practice, you’ve had a sequence of setbacks for the president that have been met by angry tirades on social media. Some attempts to do end-arounds. But basically, Trump has accepted the power of the court to block him."

Supreme Court justice's public 'dagger' at Kavanaugh was no accident: analysts

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor leveled serious criticism at fellow Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his "Kavanaugh stops," Slate legal experts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explained on Friday.

The race-based detentions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection that Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority approved last year give federal immigration agents permission to detain Latinos based, in part, on their "apparent ethnicity."

Sotomayor had a stern comment for Kavanaugh: "I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour."

"Justice Sotomayor usually goes out of her way to compliment her colleagues when she does these talks, including those on the right. She focuses on collegiality and how they all respect each other," Lithwick said. "She’s made headlines for lavishing praise on Clarence Thomas in the past. So why did she aim this dagger at Kavanaugh?"

Mark Joseph Stern described why Sotomayor's blunt response was significant.

"Well, I think this was almost certainly intentional and preplanned," Stern said. "When Justice Sotomayor does these public events, she generally seems to plant questions with her interlocutor that will allow her to make a statement. She knows she’s going to make news. So no one should think this was just Sotomayor riffing off the cuff. I believe it’s something she wanted both us and Kavanaugh to hear."

Sotomayor gives Kavanaugh reality check: 'Doesn't know any person who works by the hour'

A Supreme Court Justice has criticized a colleague appointed by Donald Trump for failing to grasp the severity of the administration's immigration policy.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor hit out at her colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during an event yesterday (April 7). Sotomayor, appointed in 2009 by President Barack Obama, criticized the September 8 emergency order which meant lower court rulings were to be paused indefinitely.

This means immigration agents have a wider scope for profiling people and are free to target them based on their language, occupation, race, or presence at specific locations like bus stops, Bloomberg Law reported. Sotomayor referenced a piece by Kavanaugh while delivering a speech at the University of Kansas School of Law.

She said, "I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour."

Sotomayor went on to claim that even short-term detentions can affect those wrongly arrested by immigration agents. "Those hours that they took you away, nobody’s paying that person," she said. "And that makes a difference between a meal for him and his kids that night and maybe just cold supper."

"Life experiences teach you to think more broadly and to see things others may not. And when I have a moment where I can express that on behalf of people who have no other voice, then I’m being given a very rare privilege."

Kavanaugh's concurrence with the immigration stops and the lower court suspension, according to Sotomayor, "relegates the interests of U.S. citizens and individuals with legal status to a single sentence, positing that the Government will free these individuals as soon as they show they are legally in the United States."

Justice Kavanaugh authored a controversial concurrence supporting immigration stops based on ethnicity and language. He wrote that "apparent ethnicity" could be a "relevant factor" in immigration enforcement.

However, he later attempted to walk back these remarks, stating officers "must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity," though legal experts criticized this as insufficient damage control for his earlier endorsement of racial profiling.

Justice Sotomayor comes out swinging in 'irregular' Trump case: 'I'm hard pressed'

Justice Sonia Sotomayor had sharp questions as the Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in the case involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who was fired from the Federal Reserve board on social media by President Donald Trump over accusations of mortgage fraud.

The significant case Trump v. Cook has raised questions over the federal independence of the central bank and whether she should be able to continue to stay in office while the high court decides if she can be fired by the president, according to the Associated Press.

The high court's decision was expected to have a lasting impact over how future presidents could influence or fire Fed governors and in a separate problem — whether the President's Truth Social post violated Cook's due process rights, The New York Times reported. Her lawyers argue that Trump acted in haste when he posted that she had two choices: resign or be fired. Cook has not been charged with any crimes.

Sotomayor spoke to this question presented in the unusual case.

"This whole case is irregular, starting with the Truth Social notice... But that's where we are," Sotomayor said, shared in a post by journalist Adam Klasfeld on X.

"This is a new standard I've never heard of before. In an informal proceeding, the president can go by social media, and one believes that that is adequate notice under law. I'm hard pressed to think that a letter from a lawyer is not notice from the adversary," Sotomayor said.

Sotomayor is among three liberal-leaning judges expected to side with Cook. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism over Trump's case and has expressed concern over the Federal Reserve's independence.

Supreme Court liberal delivers blistering dissent after hit to its 'reputation'

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson berated her colleagues Friday for a ruling she claimed gave the impression that the Court was "overly sympathetic to corporate interests," The Daily Beast reported.

Jackson's takedown came after the conservative court voted 7-2 in favor of "allowing fuel producers to challenge California’s heightened emissions limits."

California set stricter standards for emissions than the federal government laid out in the Clean Air Act, the article stated. And, in 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) moved toward phasing out the sale of gas-powered cars "in favor of zero-emission vehicles statewide by 2035."

The Supreme Court ruling now allows fossil fuel companies to challenge the California emissions law that Donald Trump called a “disaster for this country," according to the report.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson in the dissent.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,” Jackson wrote. “I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.”

Jackson said she did not doubt the ruling would "aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act.”

The Daily Beast's Paula Rodriguez wrote that the case "marks the latest of several to garner accusations that the conservative-majority court favors corporate interests." In 2024, the court overturned a 1984 decision known as the Chevron Defense, which also concerned the Clean Air Act. The court’s new ruling undid a policy that gave federal agencies precedence over courts in regulating their respective industries, earning praise from conservatives and condemnation from environmental activists."

Jackson's dissent continued, "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making. Today’s ruling runs the risk of setting us down that path.”

Read The Daily Beast article here.