Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Apologizes for Remarks About Kavanaugh

Justice Sotomayor issued an unusual apology Wednesday for critical remarks she made about the upbringing of Justice Kavanaugh.

Objective Facts

Just over one week after lobbing pointed personal criticism at Justice Brett Kavanaugh for his concurring opinion in a decision by the Supreme Court that lifted restrictions on immigration stops that the challenger said are based on racial profiling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her remarks "inappropriate" and indicated that she had apologized to Kavanaugh. Sotomayor's comments came during an April 7 appearance at the University of Kansas Law School. During her remarks, Sotomayor said, "I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour." In a three-sentence statement released by the court's Public Information Office, Sotomayor stated: "At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, 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." Liberal groups and immigrant advocacy groups maintain that the immigration stops are far lengthier and more intrusive than Kavanaugh made them seem in his opinion.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Liberal groups and immigration advocates have not issued broad statements celebrating Sotomayor's apology; instead, their criticism has focused on the underlying immigration policy. Immigrant advocacy groups have said the stops are often far lengthier and more intrusive than the justice made them seem in Kavanaugh's opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said such emergency orders can appear "oblivious and thus ring hollow," while Sotomayor has repeatedly warned that immigration enforcement decisions can have serious consequences for hourly workers and immigrant communities—concerns that were central to Sotomayor's remarks last week, which she later said went too far in characterizing a colleague's perspective. The left's response to the apology itself has been muted in available coverage. Rather than defending the personal nature of Sotomayor's original remarks, liberal outlets have focused on the underlying substance: the real-world impact of immigration enforcement policies. Sotomayor's apology came amid a wider public debate over the Supreme Court's growing reliance on emergency orders, a practice that has drawn sharp criticism from the court's liberal wing, with the court increasingly using such orders to allow presidents to move forward with major policy changes while litigation continues, often with little explanation. The available search results do not contain substantial liberal commentary defending the personal nature of Sotomayor's remarks or criticizing her for issuing the apology. Liberal media coverage has been limited to factual reporting on the apology itself and continued emphasis on the substantive policy concerns about immigration enforcement.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Conservative legal commentary has criticized Sotomayor's original remarks as departing from Supreme Court norms and welcoming her apology as a necessary correction. Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley wrote that Sotomayor took a personal dig at Kavanaugh, calling him an out-of-touch elitist, and that these comments were a disturbing departure from the tradition of collegiality and civility on the court, and that it was unfair and unwarranted. Turley noted that Kavanaugh has long faced unrelenting personal attacks from the Left since his nomination, but that this week the ad hominem insults came not from cable news pundits but from Sotomayor herself, who used her appearance to level a personal dig at Kavanaugh as an out-of-touch elitist. Conservative outlets framed the apology as overdue acknowledgment that Sotomayor had crossed a line. Turley, who has long criticized the growing number of public statements by justices on controversial subjects and cases, stated that Sotomayor's appearance represented "a new low in lashing out at a colleague as effectively blinded by his own privilege." The Washington Times, in coverage by Alex Swoyer, similarly framed Sotomayor's remarks as suggesting Kavanaugh was "out of touch with working people." Right-leaning coverage emphasized institutional concerns about the breakdown of collegiality on the bench. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas bemoaned the fraying of relations on the court in recent years, a theme he returned to in his own public comments Wednesday at an appearance at the University of Texas at Austin, saying "I joined the court that dealt with differences as friends, as we respected each other... That's civility."

Deep Dive

The Sotomayor-Kavanaugh episode reflects a broader institutional tension on the modern Supreme Court. Traditionally, justices have confined sharp disagreements to written opinions and maintained cordiality in personal interactions, treating the bench as an intellectual forum rather than a political arena. Sotomayor's April 7 remarks at the University of Kansas broke from this norm by explicitly connecting Kavanaugh's policy position to his privileged background—suggesting that his upbringing, rather than constitutional reasoning, explained his conclusion that immigration stops would be brief and minimally burdensome. What each side gets right: Conservatives correctly identify that the remarks violated established norms about colleague-to-colleague criticism and introduced considerations of personal privilege into a formal legal debate. Sotomayor's apology acknowledges this breach. Liberals correctly note that the underlying policy question has real consequences—immigration enforcement practices do affect vulnerable populations differently depending on resources, language access, and legal status. Justice Jackson's invocation of orders appearing "oblivious" reflects a genuine concern that emergency rulings sometimes bypass careful consideration of practical effects. Where conservatives emphasize institutional comity, liberals emphasize policy substance; both concerns have merit but pulled in different directions. What gets omitted: Conservative coverage largely avoids engaging with the substantive immigration policy question Sotomayor raised—whether ethnicity-informed immigration enforcement decisions should count as constitutional under the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion standard. Right-leaning outlets treat the issue as settled jurisprudence rather than disputed constitutional interpretation. Liberal coverage, meanwhile, has not widely defended the personal nature of Sotomayor's original remarks as appropriate, instead pivoting to the underlying policy. This suggests uneasy consensus that while the policy substance matters, the mode of criticism crossed a line that even liberal justices recognized. What to watch: The apology does not resolve the underlying Supreme Court conflict over whether emergency immigration orders adequately protect Fourth Amendment interests. Sotomayor and Kavanaugh will likely continue to disagree on immigration cases, and Justice Jackson has signaled she will continue speaking publicly about institutional concerns. The question is whether the apology's acknowledgment of institutional norms will make future public criticisms less pointed or whether justices will find other ways to flag policy concerns without directly commenting on colleagues' backgrounds. The April 20 return to oral arguments will show whether personal tensions on the bench have affected working relationships.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Apologizes for Remarks About Kavanaugh

Justice Sotomayor issued an unusual apology Wednesday for critical remarks she made about the upbringing of Justice Kavanaugh.

Apr 15, 2026· Updated Apr 16, 2026
What's Going On

Just over one week after lobbing pointed personal criticism at Justice Brett Kavanaugh for his concurring opinion in a decision by the Supreme Court that lifted restrictions on immigration stops that the challenger said are based on racial profiling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her remarks "inappropriate" and indicated that she had apologized to Kavanaugh. Sotomayor's comments came during an April 7 appearance at the University of Kansas Law School. During her remarks, Sotomayor said, "I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour." In a three-sentence statement released by the court's Public Information Office, Sotomayor stated: "At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, 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." Liberal groups and immigrant advocacy groups maintain that the immigration stops are far lengthier and more intrusive than Kavanaugh made them seem in his opinion.

Left says: Liberal groups maintain that Sotomayor's apology came amid a wider public debate over the Supreme Court's growing reliance on emergency orders, a practice that has drawn sharp criticism from the court's liberal wing. The underlying dispute reflects legitimate concerns about how emergency Supreme Court orders affect real working people and immigrant communities.
Right says: Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued that Sotomayor's comments were a disturbing departure from the tradition of collegiality and civility on the court and were unfair and unwarranted.
✓ Common Ground
Voices across the spectrum recognize that public criticism among Supreme Court justices is uncommon, particularly when it involves comments about a colleague's background or lived experience.
There is broad agreement that Sotomayor's decision to issue a formal apology through official court channels underscored the importance the justices place on maintaining institutional norms.
Both liberal and conservative justices—including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Clarence Thomas—have publicly discussed the importance of collegiality and civility on the court despite sharp ideological differences.
Objective Deep Dive

The Sotomayor-Kavanaugh episode reflects a broader institutional tension on the modern Supreme Court. Traditionally, justices have confined sharp disagreements to written opinions and maintained cordiality in personal interactions, treating the bench as an intellectual forum rather than a political arena. Sotomayor's April 7 remarks at the University of Kansas broke from this norm by explicitly connecting Kavanaugh's policy position to his privileged background—suggesting that his upbringing, rather than constitutional reasoning, explained his conclusion that immigration stops would be brief and minimally burdensome.

What each side gets right: Conservatives correctly identify that the remarks violated established norms about colleague-to-colleague criticism and introduced considerations of personal privilege into a formal legal debate. Sotomayor's apology acknowledges this breach. Liberals correctly note that the underlying policy question has real consequences—immigration enforcement practices do affect vulnerable populations differently depending on resources, language access, and legal status. Justice Jackson's invocation of orders appearing "oblivious" reflects a genuine concern that emergency rulings sometimes bypass careful consideration of practical effects. Where conservatives emphasize institutional comity, liberals emphasize policy substance; both concerns have merit but pulled in different directions.

What gets omitted: Conservative coverage largely avoids engaging with the substantive immigration policy question Sotomayor raised—whether ethnicity-informed immigration enforcement decisions should count as constitutional under the Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion standard. Right-leaning outlets treat the issue as settled jurisprudence rather than disputed constitutional interpretation. Liberal coverage, meanwhile, has not widely defended the personal nature of Sotomayor's original remarks as appropriate, instead pivoting to the underlying policy. This suggests uneasy consensus that while the policy substance matters, the mode of criticism crossed a line that even liberal justices recognized.

What to watch: The apology does not resolve the underlying Supreme Court conflict over whether emergency immigration orders adequately protect Fourth Amendment interests. Sotomayor and Kavanaugh will likely continue to disagree on immigration cases, and Justice Jackson has signaled she will continue speaking publicly about institutional concerns. The question is whether the apology's acknowledgment of institutional norms will make future public criticisms less pointed or whether justices will find other ways to flag policy concerns without directly commenting on colleagues' backgrounds. The April 20 return to oral arguments will show whether personal tensions on the bench have affected working relationships.

◈ Tone Comparison

Conservative outlets like Fox News and the Washington Times adopted more emphatic, critical language toward Sotomayor, with terms like "disturbing," "unfair," "unwarranted," and "a new low." Liberal and mainstream outlets like CNN and NBC News used more measured language, describing the apology as "unusual" or "highly unusual" and maintaining relatively neutral reporting without inflammatory characterizations of either justice.