Justice Sotomayor Levels Rare Public Criticism at Conservative Colleague
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is facing backlash after delivering pointed, personal remarks about fellow Justice Brett Kavanaugh during a public appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law—comments critics say crossed a longstanding line of professional decorum on the nation’s highest court.
Speaking to students this week, Sotomayor referenced Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, a case examining whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents may briefly detain individuals during enforcement operations. Rather than focusing solely on legal arguments, Sotomayor appeared to question Kavanaugh’s personal background and ability to understand the realities faced by working Americans.
“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,” she told the law school audience.
She continued:
“Those hours that they took you away, nobody’s paying that person. And that makes a difference between a meal for him and his kids that night and maybe just cold supper.”
Sotomayor framed her perspective as rooted in lived experience:
“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.”
The case at issue, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, remains pending before the Court and centers on the scope of federal immigration enforcement authority—a matter of significant national importance as the United States continues to grapple with border security and the rule of law.
Legal observers were quick to criticize Sotomayor’s remarks as inappropriate for a sitting justice, particularly given the Court’s tradition of internal disagreement without public personal attacks.
Jonathan Turley, a prominent constitutional scholar, called the comments a troubling departure from judicial norms.
“I have long criticized the growing number of public statements by justices on controversial subjects and cases, including Sotomayor. However, this appearance represented a new low in lashing out at a colleague as effectively blinded by his own privilege,” Turley wrote, adding:
Turley drew parallels to Sotomayor’s past remarks emphasizing identity and personal background in judicial decision-making, including her widely discussed “wise Latina” comments during her time on the appellate bench.
He argued that Sotomayor’s latest statements suggest that Kavanaugh’s upbringing somehow disqualifies him from fully understanding the implications of cases before the Court—an assertion critics say undermines the principle of equal justice under law.
Turley also pointed out what he described as an inconsistency in Sotomayor’s critique, noting that both justices share elite academic credentials.
“It is true that Kavanaugh went to elite schools. But so did Sotomayor, who graduated from Princeton and Yale Law.”
He further highlighted the personal history of Kavanaugh’s family, which he argued complicates Sotomayor’s characterization:
“Both of Kavanaugh’s parents were indeed lawyers, but it is odd that Sotomayor would miss the compelling story of his mother, Martha. She was a history professor who went to law school while raising a family and eventually became one of the minority of women on the state bench. That would also seem to be ‘gender origins’ that Sotomayor previously cited as key in her view of impactful judging,” he added.
Turley ultimately described Sotomayor’s remarks as “petty and unfair,” warning that such rhetoric risks eroding public confidence in the Court’s impartiality at a time when institutional trust is already under strain.
While Sotomayor noted she maintains civil relationships with most of her colleagues, the public nature of her comments has raised new questions about internal dynamics at the Court—and whether ideological divisions are increasingly spilling into the open.
As the Supreme Court prepares to rule on major issues ranging from immigration enforcement to executive authority under President Donald J. Trump, critics argue that maintaining judicial neutrality and professionalism is more essential than ever.