Supreme Court Justices Clash Over Immigration Dissent
In an unexpected moment during a recent court session, Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito struggled to hide his frustration as liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor read his entire dissent in an immigration case, prompting a rare reaction from his fellow justices.
Alito opened the discussion by briefly outlining the majority opinion in the case of Marin v. Al Otro Lado, which asserts that the government has the authority to turn away immigrants at the U.S. border before they can apply for asylum.
As Sotomayor read through Alito’s lengthy 35-page dissent, he visibly fidgeted in his chair, leaning forward, resting his chin on his hand, and gazing upward. Meanwhile, his colleagues criticized the majority decision, referring to it as “terribly wrong,” which must have added to his discomfort.
Once Sotomayor concluded, Alito reacted with a grimace and remarked that had he known she would read her dissent in full, he would have prepared additional comments.
Alito, who was appointed by George W. Bush, urged his peers to reflect on their views and consider how they respond to criticisms from outsiders. However, he ultimately chose not to provide further commentary, emphasizing that this policy has seen use across both Democratic and Republican administrations, stating simply, “I have nothing further to add.”
Such open criticism among judges in the courtroom is quite uncommon, as they typically foster strong personal and professional relationships despite their differing opinions. This situation might raise questions about whether Sotomayor breached any Supreme Court decorum by not giving prior notice before reading her dissent, a move usually reserved for expressing strong objections to the court’s decisions.
On the last day of the Supreme Court’s term, Sotomayor also voiced dissent in two other cases: one aimed at limiting the use of nationwide injunctions to halt administrative actions, and the other concerning a Maryland school district’s decision to let parents opt out of teaching LGBTQ-themed materials.
Sotomayor expressed grave concerns, stating, “The outcome of today’s decision is predictable. More people will die.” She added that many would face violence due to immutable characteristics such as race, religion, or political views.
In addition to the dissenting opinion, Alito authored three of the four majority opinions on that day, which he summarized consecutively. In one of those rulings, he concluded that the Trump administration could revoke temporary protected status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria, consequently stripping them of immunity from deportation.
In the Marin v. Al Otro Lado case, the court affirmed that the practice of “metering,” which restricts the number of asylum applicants each day, is legal under federal law allowing immigrants to seek protection upon entering the continental U.S., regardless of how they entered.
