Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appeared visibly irked Thursday when Justice Sonia Sotomayor departed from custom to read her full dissent from the bench in an immigration case. Sotomayor, in a rare move, read her 35-page opinion in the case Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, which upheld the government's authority to turn away asylum seekers at the U.S. border before they have a chance to apply.
While Sotomayor delivered her dissent, calling the majority opinion “egregiously wrong,” Alito was observed rocking in his chair, leaning forward with his chin in his hands, and looking at the ceiling. Following Sotomayor's remarks, a scowling Alito stated that he would have added more to his own opinion if he had anticipated her delivering her dissent in full. He directed listeners to his written opinion for his full response and noted that the policy in question had been previously utilized by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Alito concluded by saying, “I won’t add anything more to that.”
The exchange marked an unusual display of inter-justice friction from the bench. Typically, justices emphasize collegiality, even when disagreeing on rulings. It was not immediately clear if Sotomayor had alerted colleagues to her intention to read her dissent in its entirety, a step often taken to signal strong objections.
On the same day, Sotomayor also read a dissent regarding a ruling that limits the use of nationwide injunctions against executive actions and another opposing a decision that allowed parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons in a Maryland school district. In her dissent for the asylum case, Sotomayor warned, “The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die.” She further stated, “More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.”
Alito authored three of the four majority opinions released by the court that day. In a separate ruling, he affirmed that the Trump administration had the authority to revoke Temporary Protected Status for migrants from Haiti and Syria, ending their protection from deportation. The court's decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado found the practice of asylum “metering,” which restricts the number of asylum applications processed daily, to be lawful under federal statutes that permit migrants to seek protection once on American soil, irrespective of their entry method.