Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly criticized fellow Justice Brett Kavanaugh this week, pointing to his upbringing as a factor influencing his views on immigration enforcement, as reported by The New York Post.
Speaking Tuesday at a University of Kansas School of Law event, Sotomayor addressed Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in a case involving immigration enforcement actions carried out by federal authorities in Los Angeles.
The remarks focused on Kavanaugh’s position that certain immigration stops conducted during enforcement operations were limited in duration and did not impose lasting consequences.
Kavanaugh had written in his concurring opinion last September that such stops were “typically brief,” and that many migrants “promptly go free.”
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
His opinion supported allowing the administration to continue conducting immigration raids in the Los Angeles area, including actions based on criteria such as occupation or language.
During the event, Sotomayor suggested that Kavanaugh’s personal background may have shaped his perspective.
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said, referring to Kavanaugh, who was not present at the event.
“This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
Sotomayor argued that even short-term detentions could have financial consequences for individuals who rely on hourly wages.
According to Bloomberg Law, she emphasized that missed work time could directly affect a worker’s ability to provide for basic needs.
“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.”
MORE NEWS: CA Democrat Candidate Sparks Outrage After Turning Back on Flag and Rejecting Pledge [WATCH]
The case referenced by Sotomayor centered on immigration enforcement actions that had drawn scrutiny for the scope of individuals targeted.
Kavanaugh’s opinion highlighted the longstanding use of such enforcement measures.
“Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of US immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations,” Kavanaugh wrote.
At the time of the ruling, Sotomayor joined the court’s other two liberal justices in issuing a dissenting opinion that raised concerns about how the enforcement practices could affect certain communities.
“We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” the dissent stated.
The exchange reflects ongoing differences within the Supreme Court regarding immigration enforcement and the interpretation of constitutional protections.
While Kavanaugh’s opinion supported the continuation of certain enforcement practices, Sotomayor and her colleagues argued those actions carried broader implications.
The remarks at the University of Kansas event brought renewed attention to the division between the justices on the issue.
Doing Something About It: Louisiana US Senate Primary | The Rob Maness Show EP 672
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
That man/woman/thing should never been allowed near the SCOTUS, let alone a seat at the table!
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” ~ Sotomayor
Hope is not a strategy, Sonia.
Same goes for Jumanji
The Wise Latina needs to learn how to live up to her name. At least half of it.
Unfortunately, the half she’s living up to is the wrong half.
“We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” the dissent stated.
My response is: We should not have to live in a country where an administration has no respect for the laws of immigration, and allows millions of undocumented into the country, and is allowed to perpetuate the results on citizens for decades to come.
Dorothy, you’re definitely the voice of reason here.
Any rational observer knows that the Democrats, thru Biden, encouraged years of open borders, allowing thousands of Third World criminals to roam free in the USA. Just how many methods exist to correct the damage the Democrats have inflicted?
see The Invisible Coup by Peter Schweizer. He contends a Reconquista movement is going on in the US.
Clearly if an individual is wrongly detained the government should compensate them for their loss. However those rightly detained should compensate the tax payer for the cost of their capture and detention.
According to Sotomayor’s logic, stops to prevent DUI should be forbidden because they take away from people’s drinking time.
She is right that his background informs his views. SO DOES HERS.
So does his loyalty to the constitution versus hers.
All perspectives, too, are based on finite experiences that some embrace as the whole and normative for all, when in fact many finite experiences of reality are not universal.
Most people I see today could use missing a meal every couple of years, especially Sotomayor.
How did that incompetent DEI hire get nominated, much less voted in by the Senate? She should be thrown out of SCOTUS and never allowed to practice law, ever again. Her views are not those of American jurisprudence.
Our Congress is irreparably broken and no longer serves we the people.
It’s likely Sotomayor’s upbringing influences how she views and feels about different situations. To deny this would be ridiculous. The hard part is acknowledging personal views yet making decisions based strictly on the law/s. That’s why these folks are on the Supreme Court. I think their egos get in the way, hence the battle between their views and seeing the laws clearly.
always race victimization
She swore an oath to rule based on the constitution, but has no issue with oathbreaking. Unfortunately, the oaths of office taken by our illustrous representatives have no value. There is no accounatability for breaking one’s oath. As such we have appointed judges who rule on partisan bias and seem to have not bothered to read our constitution. BTW, SCOTUS take two oaths.
Sotomayor hasn’t the IQ to challenge anyone!
So says the second dumbest idiot on the bench.