U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement Wednesday apologizing for remarks she made about a colleague during an appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, calling her comments "inappropriate" and saying she regretted "hurtful" remarks.

The dispute centered on Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in Noem v. Perdomo, a September 2025 emergency appeal case involving immigration enforcement sweeps in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court stayed the case 6-3, allowing ICE to use apparent race or ethnicity and work location as factors in immigration stops in California.

During her remarks at the University of Kansas, Sotomayor criticized Kavanaugh without naming him directly, taking issue with his characterization that encounters between legal residents and immigration officers are "typically brief" and that individuals may "promptly go free."

"This is from a man whose parents were professionals and probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour," Sotomayor said, suggesting Kavanaugh did not understand the financial consequences faced by hourly workers who are detained even briefly.

Sotomayor, who authored the dissenting opinion in the case, alleged during the appearance that her colleague failed to grasp how even short detentions can have major financial consequences for hourly workers, despite Kavanaugh citing legal reasoning that immigration stops are longstanding and based on reasonable suspicion.

She added that her "life experiences" taught her to "think more broadly and to see things others may not," seemingly referencing her background as the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court.

In a statement released by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Sotomayor said she "referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case" but "made remarks that were inappropriate." "I regret my hurtful comments," she wrote. "I have apologized to my colleague."

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive legal analysts and Democratic-aligned commentators have largely defended Sotomayor's concerns about the real-world impact of immigration enforcement, while noting that her apology was appropriate. The comments from Sotomayor reflected longstanding progressive arguments about how court decisions affect working-class Americans, particularly in immigrant communities.

Civil rights organizations have emphasized the importance of considering how legal rulings affect everyday people, particularly hourly workers who may face financial devastation from even brief detentions. Supporters noted that Sotomayor's dissent in Noem v. Perdomo focused on the constitutional concerns raised by the government's use of race and ethnicity in enforcement decisions.

Some progressive commentators have also pointed to Sotomayor's unique perspective as the first Hispanic justice, arguing that lived experience brings valuable context to deliberations about immigration enforcement that affects Latino communities disproportionately.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservative legal scholars and Republican-aligned commentators have condemned Sotomayor's personal critique of Kavanaugh, calling it inappropriate and unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice. Critics argued that attacking a colleague's background rather than engaging with legal arguments undermines the court's legitimacy.

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans have called for greater civility on the bench, with some suggesting that Sotomayor's remarks reflect a broader trend of political polarization reaching the Supreme Court. Commentators noted that personal attacks on judges have become increasingly common, with Chief Justice John Roberts warning that such attacks are "dangerous."

Defenders of Kavanaugh's opinion have pointed out that the legal reasoning in his concurrence was sound, noting that the court properly balanced constitutional concerns about reasonable suspicion with enforcement needs. Conservative commentators argued that Sotomayor's dismissal of his legal analysis was unfair, particularly given that Kavanaugh cited well-established precedent on immigration stops.

What the Numbers Show

In Noem v. Perdomo, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to stay a lower court injunction that had blocked ICE enforcement in California. The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh. The dissent was authored by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

The case involved the Trump administration's request to allow immigration enforcement sweeps in Los Angeles. The court's stay allowed ICE to use "apparent race or ethnicity" language and work location as factors in justifying immigration stops, a provision that had been blocked by a lower court judge.

Kavanaugh's concurring opinion emphasized that legal residents' encounters with immigration agents are "typically brief" and that individuals may promptly go free after proving their legal status. Sotomayor's dissent argued the government's new enforcement criteria raised significant constitutional concerns.

The Bottom Line

Sotomayor's apology marks an unusual public acknowledgment of tension between Supreme Court justices, an institution traditionally known for collegiality. The incident comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of the court, with Chief Justice Roberts warning against personal attacks on judges following political criticism of the judiciary.

The underlying legal dispute in Noem v. Perdomo remains significant, as it involves the scope of immigration enforcement powers in California and the use of race and ethnicity factors in identifying individuals for questioning. The court's 6-3 decision to allow enforcement to proceed while appeals continue means the constitutional questions at stake will be resolved in lower courts before potentially returning to the Supreme Court.

What to watch: Whether this public disagreement affects future deliberations in closely divided cases, and whether congressional oversight of the Supreme Court increases amid ongoing debates about judicial ethics and transparency.