
Justice Sonia Sotomayor Says Judges Must Be ‘Fearlessly Independent'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the senior member of the Supreme Court's liberal wing, said on Friday that judges must remain 'fearlessly independent' if the rule of law is to survive.
Her remarks, made in a packed auditorium at Georgetown University Law Center, were at once cautious and forceful. She did not address particular controversies arising from the Trump administration's actions testing the conventional understanding of presidential power, many of which appear likely to land at the Supreme Court. But she made plain that her observations about the fragility of the justice system addressed current events.
She bemoaned, for instance, 'the fact that some of our public leaders are lawyers making statements challenging the rule of law.'
She was interviewed by the law school's dean, William M. Treanor, who interspersed his questions with ones that had been submitted by students. He started the conversation by characterizing those questions, alluding to recent efforts by the Trump administration to punish major law firms and its battles with courts over its blitz of executive orders.
'As our students prepare to join the legal profession, they are confronting genuine unsettling questions about the durability of that profession and of the law itself,' he said. 'The most commonly asked question was the role of courts in safeguarding the rule of law.'
Justice Sotomayor answered in general terms, citing reference works and experts. She said she had consulted with Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, a former member of the Supreme Court of Canada, about judges' obligations, quoting her response: 'They need to remain fearlessly independent, protective of rights and ensure that the state is respectful of both.'
Justice Sotomayor said she 'couldn't think of a better answer than that.'
Dean Treanor said those comments were timely, and the justice agreed.
She returned to the role of judges in curbing excesses.
'Judicial independence is critical to everyone's freedom, because arbitrary power is just that,' she said. 'And it means that anyone is going to be subject to unfairness at someone else's whim.'
Justice Sotomayor's remarks came in a charged setting. Georgetown's law school was the subject of an unusual inquiry from Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. In a letter to Dean Treanor, Mr. Martin demanded that the law school end all efforts at achieving diversity, equity and inclusion.
'It has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach and promote D.E.I.,' Mr. Martin wrote. 'This is unacceptable.'
He said he had started an inquiry and asked the dean two questions: 'First, have you eliminated all D.E.I. from your school and its curriculum? Second, if D.E.I. is found in your courses or teaching in any way, will you move swiftly to remove it?'
In the meantime, Mr. Martin indicated that his office would not hire students and others affiliated with the law school.
Dean Treanor, a constitutional scholar and former Justice Department official, responded by letter that the Constitution 'guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it.'
Indeed, he wrote, 'given the First Amendment's protection of a university's freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the university's mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.'
Justice Sotomayor did not discuss that exchange or President Trump's executive orders retaliating against prominent law firms, stripping their lawyers of security clearances, barring them from entering federal buildings and discouraging federal officials from interacting with the firms.
Justice Sotomayor was once a summer associate at one of those firms, Paul Weiss, which struck a deal with the administration, prompting criticism that it had sacrificed its principles to protect its bottom line.
She was also the first beneficiary of affirmative action to defend the practice from the Supreme Court bench, citing that experience when she summarized in emphatic and impassioned tones her dissent from a 2014 ruling upholding Michigan's ban on using race in admissions decisions at the state's public universities.
'Race matters,' she wrote, 'because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here.' '
Justice Sotomayor, 70, was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009. She said on Friday that the court has taken some wrong turns over the years, singling out Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade in 1973.
'We've never had, except for Dobbs, another precedent where we took away a constitutional right that we granted before,' she said, adding that 'people believe in the stability of the law.'
Justice Sotomayor concluded by musing, again, on judicial power.
'Those who judge should be sensitive about how our rulings affect people, because that is what we are doing,' she said. 'Putting it in a colloquial term, we're messing with your lives.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court revives lawsuit from Atlanta family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI
Martin and Cliatt filed a lawsuit against the federal government accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations. But lower courts tossed out the case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found they couldn't sue over what amounted to an honest mistake. Advertisement The appeals court also found the lawsuit was barred under a provision of the Constitution known as the Supremacy Clause, which says federal laws take precedence over state laws. The family's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress clearly allowed for lawsuits like theirs after a pair of similar headline-making raids on wrong houses in 1974. The 11th Circuit was also ruling differently than other courts around the country, they said. Public interest groups from across the political spectrum urged the justices to overturn the ruling, saying its reasoning would severely narrow the legal path for people to sue the federal government in law-enforcement accountability cases. Advertisement


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court rules for girl with epilepsy in opinion that could affect education access lawsuits
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy on Thursday in a unanimous ruling that could make it easier for families like hers to go to court over access to education. The girl's family says that her Minnesota school district didn't do enough to make sure she has the accommodations she needs to learn, including failing to provide adequate instruction in the evening when her seizures are less frequent. But lower courts ruled against the family's discrimination claims in court, despite finding the school had fallen short. That's because courts in that part of the country require plaintiffs in lawsuits against schools to show officials used 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' a higher legal standard than most disability discrimination claims. The family appealed to the Supreme Court. The district, Osseo Area Schools, said that lowering the legal standard could expose the country's understaffed public schools to more lawsuits if their efforts fall short, even if officials are working in good faith. The district also argued that all claims over accommodations for people with disabilities should be held to the same higher standard — a potentially major switch that would have been a 'five-alarm fire' for the disability rights community, the girl's lawyers said. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at