Sotomayor publicly critiques Kavanaugh's grasp of immigration stops

Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly criticized colleague Brett Kavanaugh's understanding of immigration detentions during a speech at the University of Kansas. She highlighted his privileged background in relation to his opinion allowing stops based partly on apparent ethnicity. The remarks come amid a new lawsuit challenging such practices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took aim at Justice Brett Kavanaugh's opinion in a Supreme Court case that permitted immigration agents to consider a person's 'apparent ethnicity' during stops. Critics have dubbed these 'Kavanaugh stops.' Speaking at an event on Tuesday at the University of Kansas, Sotomayor reflected on Kavanaugh's concurrence, stating: '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 added that such detentions impact hourly workers harshly, noting: '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 emphasized her dissent aimed to show Kavanaugh was breaking precedent, not just as a personal grievance. A new class-action lawsuit filed this week in New York targets Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection for detaining people 'based solely on their perceived Latino ethnicity.' Plaintiffs describe traumatic incidents, such as unmarked vehicles pulling over lawful residents. The suit seeks a statewide injunction against racial profiling in immigration enforcement. Kavanaugh's earlier 6-3 majority support contrasted with a later footnote in Trump v. Illinois, where he said stops must be 'brief' and 'based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence,' not 'race or ethnicity.' Sotomayor's comments have sparked discussion on Supreme Court collegiality, with some viewing them as a breach of protocol.

Awọn iroyin ti o ni ibatan

Judge Beryl Howell in courtroom ruling limits on warrantless ICE arrests in D.C., rebuking Supreme Court decision.
Àwòrán tí AI ṣe

Judge Howell limits warrantless immigration arrests in D.C., rebukes Supreme Court ‘Kavanaugh stops’ ruling

Ti AI ṣe iroyin Àwòrán tí AI ṣe Ti ṣayẹwo fun ododo

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell has ruled that immigration officers in the District of Columbia must have probable cause before carrying out warrantless arrests, a decision that reins in aggressive enforcement tactics and pointedly questions a recent Supreme Court order that expanded immigration ‘roving patrols’ elsewhere.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has appeared to reverse his earlier stance allowing apparent ethnicity as a factor in immigration stops. In a recent footnote, he stated that race and ethnicity cannot be considerations in such actions. This comes amid criticism over so-called 'Kavanaugh stops' leading to racial profiling.

Ti AI ṣe iroyin

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in a case involving a Vermont state police sergeant's use of force against a nonviolent protester, warning that the majority granted officers a 'license to inflict gratuitous pain.' The decision reversed a lower court's ruling denying qualified immunity to Sgt. Jacob Zorn. Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued the action violated the Fourth Amendment.

Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia urged U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw to dismiss human smuggling charges against their client, labeling the Department of Justice's explanations as 'legally irrelevant and patently incredible.' The request follows an evidentiary hearing where government witnesses testified about the case's origins. The prosecution emerged after Abrego Garcia's wrongful deportation and court-ordered return.

Ti AI ṣe iroyin

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. Trump attended the hearing in person—the first sitting president to do so—before leaving midway and posting criticism on Truth Social. A majority of justices expressed skepticism toward the administration’s arguments.

Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz has warned of criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for repeated violations of court orders in immigration cases. The judge expressed frustration over the government's failure to comply with directives related to ICE detentions following Operation Metro Surge. This comes amid overwhelming caseloads for federal attorneys handling the fallout.

Ti AI ṣe iroyin

A federal judge in Minnesota has held the Trump administration in contempt for violating a court order by transferring a Mexican detainee out of state before his release. The ruling requires reimbursement for the man's return airfare after Immigration and Customs Enforcement released him in Texas, far from his home. The decision highlights ongoing legal challenges to immigration enforcement practices.

 

 

 

Ojú-ìwé yìí nlo kuki

A nlo kuki fun itupalẹ lati mu ilọsiwaju wa. Ka ìlànà àṣírí wa fun alaye siwaju sii.
Kọ