Sotomayor issues fiery dissents to major Supreme Court decisions

Washington Post

27-06-2025

Twice on Friday morning, as Supreme Court spectators digested two landmark, 6-3 rulings on birthright citizenship and religious rights in schools, Justice Sonia Sotomayor ferociously disagreed.
As the courtroom quietly turned its attention to her — after listening to Justice Amy Coney Barrett read her summary of the majority view — the court's senior liberal justice hunched forward, peered through black-framed glasses and, in a clear, measured tone, began reading the first of her two long dissents, sounding an alarm over what she perceived to be the deep and lasting impacts of the rulings on schools, immigrants and the justice system.
It marked the second and third times in this term that Sotomayor has read her dissent from the bench in her role as the longest-serving member of the court's liberal bloc. Earlier this month, she issued an oral dissent to a ruling that upheld a ban on transgender treatment for youths.
In discussing President Donald Trump's order revoking birthright citizenship, Sotomayor noted that not even the Trump administration had tried to defend the substance of the order, instead attacking the use of 'universal injunctions' by three federal district courts that had ruled the citizenship ban unconstitutional.
'That the court uses this case of all cases to review the question of universal injunctions is shameful,' she declared. 'If there was ever a case where a universal injunction is appropriate, it is this one under every historical precedent.'
Barrett — who wrote the majority opinion that lower courts have acted too broadly in issuing nationwide injunctions — turned to face Sotomayor as she read her dissents.
The two are friends, and spoke together at a public forum last year, but the atmosphere between them seemed to grow chilly as Sotomayor continued reading for 20 minutes. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch normally sits between Sotomayor and Barrett, but he was absent Friday for unexplained reasons.
'Ordering relief that extends beyond the plaintiff,' Barrett said, 'exceeds the power of the Judiciary Act,' which established the federal courts' jurisdiction in 1798. The opinion Barrett wrote sent three cases back to lower courts to determine if something less than a nationwide injunction might suffice.
Sotomayor called that 'very strange because the lower courts found only universal injunctions would be appropriate.'
The majority ruling left open the option for plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits, but Sotomayor ridiculed that option.
'Every court to consider that [citizenship] order has deemed it patently unconstitutional,' she said. 'Yet the majority ignores the order's unlawfulness. Instead, the executive is generally free to enforce unquestionably unconstitutional policies against everyone except those who file suit.'
Sotomayor revisited the 14th Amendment, reading the clause that grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. 'The lawmakers who ratified the 14th Amendment said … and understood that it would extend citizenship to people born here, regardless of their parents' citizenship,' Sotomayor said. 'All three branches of the government have unflinchingly recognized birthright citizenship' since 1868.
'Enforcement of the citizenship order against even one newborn child is an assault on our constitutional order,' she added. 'Today's decision is not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.' She said any federal agency can now break a law 'and federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions immediately.'
'No right is safe,' she warned. 'Today, the test is birthright citizenship.' She said future administrations could try to seize guns in violation of the Second Amendment or prohibit religious worship in violation of the First Amendment.
Sotomayor said that those affected by Friday's ruling 'would be well advised to file class-action suits immediately. … Lower courts would be wise to act quickly on such requests for relief.'
She concluded, 'With a stroke of the pen, the president has made a mockery of our Constitution.'
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. then moved to another case, but soon Sotomayor was on deck again. The conservative majority ruled that school districts must allow parents to remove their students from classes where LGBTQ+ issues are raised. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. read from a book intended for use in Montgomery County, Maryland, schools, titled, 'Born Ready,' in which the character Penelope expresses that she wants to be a boy.
'This is a clear message about gender alteration procedures,' Alito said, 'to which many parents disagree.' He said parents 'have a right to instruct their children in accordance with their beliefs,' and that the Montgomery County school board was 'dismissive of the parents' concerns.'
Sotomayor said the book merely gave a positive message about accepting a transgender person. 'Today's ruling, make no mistake, threatens the very essence of public education in this country,' she said, adding, 'If innocuous children's books read aloud are enough to engender strict scrutiny, then nearly everything is.'
Sotomayor said the use of such books was merely 'exposing kids to the fact that gay and transgender people may exist … and their family members may treat them with love and kindness.'
She said: 'Does mere exposure to concepts … prohibit the exercise of their religion? The answer to that question for centuries has been no. Mere exposure to objectionable ideas does not amount to a prohibition on free exercise of religion.'
Sotomayor agreed with Montgomery County administrators, who argued that tracking every student's religious academic preferences would be difficult. 'To say this will not cause an administrative burden is ridiculous,' she said.
'One thing is clear,' she said. 'The damage to America's public school system will be profound. Teachers will have to stop classes merely to usher children in and out, which will cripple schools and destroy their openness.'