...
By Andrew Stanton
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court issued a rare public statement addressing a “misunderstanding” between Justice Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor on Friday.
The statement is notable because the High Court rarely issues statements on internal deliberations or tensions between the justices. It comes after an unusual exchange after the court ruled 6-3 on Thursday to allow the Trump administration to end temporary protection status (TPS) for migrants from Haiti and Syria.
Supreme Court Addresses ‘Misunderstanding’
Sotomayor, a liberal justice who ruled against the Trump administration, criticized the ruling from the bench. She said the ruling "regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty."
Read More on News
Alito appeared to be surprised by her decision to read the dissent. He said he would have added more detail to his summary if he knew of her plans to speak. He defended his opinion, saying the policy at the center of the case was used under former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s administrations.
Alito ruled alongside the other conservative justices in support of the administration position on TPS.
A spokesperson for the court responded to the exchange in a statement first reported by CNN.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench,” the spokesperson said. “It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
...
A Rare Supreme Court Statement
While Supreme Court justices at times may exchange criticisms in their rulings, it’s unusual for the court to issue statements addressing internal disputes between them. Statements typically deal with justice retirements, health or administrative matters.
At times, however, disagreements between the justices have spilled over into the public view.
In April, Sotomayor issued a statement apologizing to conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh for a comment appearing to criticize him “for failing to grasp the real-world effects of an unsigned order last year that allowed immigration enforcement sweeps in Los Angeles to resume.”
Prior to Friday's statement, that was the only recent time the court issued a statement addressing internal divisions, though the justices have made statements critical of one another in rulings and other public remarks.
Sotomayor has been critical of the court in some of her dissents, including one issued in response to a ruling this week that she described as “another low point in this Court’s esteem for its precedents.”
In that case, a majority of justices sided with Cisco Systems in a case brought by Chinese Falun Gong practitioners who alleged the company helped the Chinese government identify and persecute them through surveillance technology.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a public criticism of the court’s conservatives earlier this year, describing recent rulings as “scratch‑paper musings” that risk appearing detached from real‑world consequences.
Supreme Court’s TPS Ruling: What to Know
The six conservative justices sided with the administration’s argument that courts lack authority to second-guess key determinations about TPS, a humanitarian program created by Congress in 1990 to shield migrants from deportation when conditions in their home countries are deemed unsafe. The ruling allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to rapidly unwind protections for roughly 350,000 Haitians and about 6,000 Syrians who had been granted work authorization and legal status under the program.
The decision in Mullin v. Doe overturns lower court orders that had blocked the policy and marks a major victory for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan authored the dissent in the case.
"The majority's ruling flips traditional administrative accountability on its head, granting the executive branch total immunity from basic judicial oversight while putting hundreds of thousands of legally present individuals at immediate risk of removal," she wrote. "By insulating these sweeping policy shifts from meaningful review, the Court strips away vital protections against arbitrary and potentially biased government action."
The ruling has drawn criticism from some Republicans.
Representative Mike Lawler of New York said he “strongly disagree[s] with ending Haitian TPS at this time,” citing Haiti’s ongoing security collapse.
Lawler also warned of immediate domestic fallout, noting a significant share of Haitian TPS holders work in healthcare. Ending their status, he said, “will create a crisis in our hospitals, nursing homes, and in the I/DD community,” and urged the administration to allow an orderly transition period.
Ohio Republican Governor Mike DeWine struck a similar tone, calling the ruling “a legal decision” but arguing the policy is “a mistake.” He warned more than 10,000 Haitians in Ohio will now be “subject to immediate deportation,” despite having been “working and contributing” to their communities, adding that revoking their status “is not in the best interest of the United States nor Ohio.”
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Anthony Murray.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines