Sotomayor Rebukes Kavanaugh at University Event, Calls Supreme Court Colleague Out of Touch With Working Class

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly delivered one of the most personal rebukes seen between sitting justices in recent memory this week, taking direct aim at Justice Brett Kavanaugh over his written opinion in a major immigration enforcement case. The rare public criticism is drawing widespread attention across the country.

Sotomayor Rebukes Kavanaugh at University of Kansas

Speaking at an event hosted by the University of Kansas School of Law on Tuesday, Justice Sotomayor addressed the Supreme Court of the United States' divided decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, a September 2025 shadow docket ruling that allowed the Trump administration to resume immigration enforcement sweeps in the Los Angeles area.

Sotomayor said of the unnamed colleague, referring to 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."

Although Sotomayor did not name Kavanaugh directly during her remarks, she emphasized that the financial consequences of even short detentions are significant for hourly workers. "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."

What Kavanaugh Actually Wrote on the Supreme Court of the United States

In his concurrence, Kavanaugh asserted that legal residents' encounters with immigration agents are "typically brief" and that impacted individuals "promptly go free." Kavanaugh also wrote that race or ethnicity could be "a relevant factor" in determining reasonable suspicion when considered alongside other factors — not as a standalone basis for a stop.

The court's six conservatives blocked a lower court's ruling banning racial profiling from going into effect through an unwritten shadow docket decision, leaving Kavanaugh's concurrence as the only written words justifying the ruling. Encounters stemming from that opinion have come to be known as "Kavanaugh Stops."

Citizens profiled by immigration agents have been manhandled, zip-tied, and held for days in detention, sometimes without access to a lawyer. Agents also reportedly refused to accept documents proving citizenship. Those detained have included at least 20 children.

Sotomayor on Precedent and Her Role at the Supreme Court

Sotomayor said Tuesday she wrote her dissent not as a Latina who was insulted, but to try to convince Kavanaugh he was upending decades of court precedent. "I was not talking as a Latino justice. I was talking about a justice who respects precedent. And I was explaining why that precedent is being violated."

Sotomayor also reflected on the controversy surrounding the court's shadow docket and its multiple rulings in favor of the Trump administration. "There's a lot of controversy over this process, because there's a belief among some on my court — the majority — that whenever we stop the executive branch from doing something it wants to do, that's irreparable harm to the government."

Sotomayor, 71, who was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009 by President Barack Obama, has long been known for her dissents. She is the first Latina to serve on the nation's highest court, born in the Bronx to working-class Puerto Rican parents — a background she says shapes how she interprets the real-world weight of the court's decisions.

Background Contrast Drives Sotomayor's Sharp Criticism of Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh was born and raised in Washington, D.C., where he attended the all-boys Georgetown Preparatory School before earning both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale. He served as a judge on the D.C. Circuit before being confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2018.

Sotomayor's journey to the nation's top court began in very modest circumstances, a contrast she leaned into pointedly during the Kansas event to underscore what she called a fundamental disconnect in how the court's majority perceives the lived realities of working-class Americans.