Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissents during the Supreme Court’s 2024–25 term and into June 2026 have become the sharpest running critique of the conservative majority, covering asylum at the border, deportations to third countries, transgender medical care, universal injunctions, and religious opt-outs in public schools. The pattern peaked on June 25, 2026, when she read her dissent aloud in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado and Justice Samuel Alito broke from protocol to deliver an unscripted rebuttal from the bench, an exchange the Court itself had to clarify the next day.
The Mullin Dissent on Asylum Metering
In Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25-5), a 6–3 majority held that asylum seekers standing on the Mexican side of the border have not “arrived in the United States” under federal immigration law and so have no statutory right to apply for asylum or be inspected.1Supreme Court of the United States. Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5 The ruling upheld the border practice known as “metering,” under which officials physically prevent migrants from stepping onto U.S. soil.2SCOTUSblog. Justices Side With Trump Administration in Border Dispute Over Asylum Seekers
Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, wrote that speaking with a Border Patrol agent at a legal port of entry is itself the first step of arriving in the country, and that the majority’s reading “blesses the executive branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution.”3The New York Times. Supreme Court Rules Asylum Seekers at Border Have Not Arrived in U.S. She rejected the majority’s use of the presumption against extraterritoriality, arguing the case concerns the conduct of U.S. immigration officers clearly subject to American authority.4Constitutional Accountability Center. Supreme Court Misunderstands Immigration Law and the Presumption of Extraterritoriality Metering, she said, incentivizes illegal crossings by turning away people who try to enter lawfully. She invoked the 1939 voyage of the M.S. St. Louis, when the United States refused entry to a ship carrying Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. “More people will die,” she wrote.5CNN. Takeaways: Supreme Court Hands Trump Massive Wins on Immigration Agenda
The Courtroom Exchange With Justice Alito
Sotomayor read a roughly ten-minute oral summary of the dissent from the bench, a step justices reserve for cases they consider seriously wrong. When she finished, Alito departed from standard practice and offered an extemporaneous response: “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.”6NPR. Supreme Court: Alito Responds to Sotomayor Oral Dissent Reporters covering the Court said they could not recall a similar moment; the closest recent parallel was Justice Scalia’s 2015 bench rebuttal to Justice Breyer in Glossip v. Gross.7SCOTUSblog. An Unusual Retort to a Dissent From the Bench
Alito defended the metering policy by noting it had been used under both the Obama and Trump administrations and described it as a way to delay entry “until they can be processed in a safe and orderly way.”8NBC Washington. Sotomayor Dissent, Asylum Ruling, and Alito Response The next day, the Supreme Court’s public information office issued a correction. Sotomayor’s chambers had in fact notified Alito in advance that she would be reading her dissent. “It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part,” the statement said.9CNN. Supreme Court Says Alito Verbal Reaction to Sotomayor Was Misunderstanding
The Other Major Dissents of the 2024–25 Term
SCOTUSblog’s term review described Sotomayor’s dissents that year as “urgent interventions” and “warnings about constitutional erosion or violations of individual rights.”10SCOTUSblog. Dissenting With Feeling: The Tone of Dissents in the 2024-25 Term Five stand out.
DHS v. D.V.D.: Third-Country Removals
In Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (No. 24A1153), the Court stayed a district court injunction that had blocked the government from deporting noncitizens to third countries without advance notice or a chance to raise Convention Against Torture claims. Sotomayor’s 19-page dissent accused the majority of rewarding “flagrantly unlawful conduct.” She catalogued specific cases: a Guatemalan man removed to Mexico despite protection from removal to Guatemala; four detainees transferred from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador in violation of a temporary restraining order; and near-removals to Libya and South Sudan, where the State Department had warned of armed conflict. The government’s “no-notice” removals, she wrote, violated the Fifth Amendment and exposed thousands to “torture or death.”11Supreme Court of the United States. DHS v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153 SCOTUSblog called it the term’s most intense dissent.12SCOTUSblog. The Most Intense Dissents of the Term
Trump v. J.G.G.: The Alien Enemies Act
In Trump v. J.G.G. (No. 24A931), the Court vacated restraining orders that had blocked the deportation of Venezuelan nationals accused of gang membership under the Alien Enemies Act. Sotomayor alleged the government had run a “covert operation” to deport detainees before the underlying proclamation was even published, “hustl[ing] people onto those planes in hopes of evading an injunction.” Some detainees, she noted, had been labeled gang members based on tattoos or social associations and were transferred to El Salvador’s CECOT prison while litigation was still pending.13Cornell Law Institute. Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931
United States v. Skrmetti: Transgender Medical Care
Decided June 18, 2025, United States v. Skrmetti (No. 23-477) upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors under rational-basis review, treating the law as a classification based on age and medical use rather than sex.14Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477 Sotomayor opened her dissent with the line “In sadness, I dissent,” arguing the statute plainly discriminates by sex because it bars care for a minor of one sex while permitting the same treatment for a minor of the other. The majority, she wrote, had “obfuscate[d] a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute.” The ruling left in place similar laws in 25 other states.15CBS News. Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Gender-Affirming Care Ban for Minors
Trump v. CASA: Universal Injunctions
In Trump v. CASA, Inc. (No. 24A884), a 6–3 majority held that federal courts likely lack authority to issue universal injunctions covering non-parties, in a case arising from an executive order ending birthright citizenship. The majority did not reach the constitutional question.16Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884 Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, accusing the majority of “kneecap[ing] the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies” and warning that constitutional guarantees would now be “meaningful in name only” for anyone not personally named in a lawsuit. She called the ruling an “open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.”17SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Sides With Trump Administration on Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case
Mahmoud v. Taylor: Religious Opt-Outs in Public Schools
In Mahmoud v. Taylor (No. 24-297), decided June 27, 2025, the Court held that Montgomery County Public Schools’ refusal to allow religious opt-outs from LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks in its K–5 curriculum violated parents’ Free Exercise rights, applying strict scrutiny.18Supreme Court of the United States. Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297 Sotomayor warned in dissent that the decision could create a “slippery slope” letting parents demand exemptions from lessons on evolution, racial justice, or civil rights. “The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations,” she wrote.19SCOTUSblog. When Inclusion Becomes Compulsion: Mahmoud v. Taylor, Pluralism, and Public Education
The Kavanaugh Apology
The Alito exchange was not the only interpersonal episode of the period. In April 2026, Sotomayor issued a public apology to Justice Brett Kavanaugh after remarks she made at the University of Kansas School of Law about his concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, which had allowed ICE “roving patrols” in Southern California to continue. Kavanaugh had written that “apparent ethnicity” could be a “relevant factor” for reasonable suspicion during brief immigration stops. At the Kansas event, Sotomayor said the opinion came from “a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”20SCOTUSblog. Justice Sotomayor Apologizes for Inappropriate Remarks About Justice Kavanaugh
On April 15, 2026, she issued a statement through the Court: “I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.” Kavanaugh did not publicly respond.21CNN. Sonia Sotomayor Apologizes to Brett Kavanaugh
Why She Reads Dissents From the Bench
Reading a dissent from the bench is a deliberate signal. Justices use it sparingly, to flag a disagreement they consider fundamental. In the 2024 term alone, Sotomayor delivered oral dissents in Garland v. Cargill and SEC v. Jarkesy, where she said from the bench that the majority’s ruling was “a devastating blow to the manner in which our government functions.”22SCOTUSblog. Two Oral Dissents and More Opinion Days to Come
Sotomayor, on the Court since 2009, describes her approach as “fidelity to the law.” She has said the “vast majority of my dissents surround issues of fair process, because that really guides what I think justice is about,” and she rejects the view that the Constitution is “frozen into a period of time.”23Georgetown Law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor Reflects on the Role of Courts and the Rule of Law When she stands to read, it signals she views a decision as not merely wrong but dangerous.