Sonia Sotomayor Delivers Vigorous Dissent Against Supreme Court Ruling

WASHINGTON — July 5, 2024 — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly expressed profound concern last week over a recent Supreme Court decision that curtailed the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), marking a pivotal moment in her judicial career.

In an unusual move, Justice Sotomayor opted to read aloud a detailed summary of her dissenting opinion during open court proceedings, highlighting her deep-seated reservations regarding what she termed the "war on the administrative state."

"This ruling provides little cause for celebration among those of us who uphold the sanctity of the rule of law," she emphasized, placing deliberate emphasis on the word "little."

The decision, which resulted in a 6-3 split along ideological lines favoring the court's conservative bloc, was among three rulings delivered in the final week of the term that collectively undermined the authority of federal agencies. These rulings notably impact their regulatory powers in crucial sectors such as environmental conservation, workplace safety, and consumer protection.

Justice Elena Kagan continued this dissenting trend on June 27th, authoring a pointed rebuke after the court overturned a longstanding precedent granting deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes. Like Justice Sotomayor, Kagan chose to articulate her dissent comprehensively from the bench, warning of significant disruptions to established legal interpretations.

The following day, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added her voice to the dissenting chorus. As anticipation surrounded a landmark decision on former President Donald Trump's immunity, the court issued another ruling favoring corporate interests, thereby facilitating increased litigation challenging historical agency decisions.

In her dissent, Justice Jackson expressed palpable frustration over the "profound implications" of the ruling, foreseeing a surge in litigation that could potentially cripple federal agencies' ability to function effectively.

The unity among the liberal justices in delivering dissenting opinions was striking, noted by legal experts as "a notable series of dissents." John Elwood, a seasoned lawyer with extensive court experience, underscored the significance of this collective dissent.

Sam Sankar, an attorney specializing in environmental advocacy with Earthjustice, observed, "The dissenting justices presented a cohesive front. There appears to have been collaboration and a concerted effort."

However, Jennifer Mascott, a respected scholar at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law and an NBC News contributor, cautioned against overinterpreting the unity of dissent, emphasizing the justices' division of responsibilities based on expertise and interests.

The practice of justices reading dissenting opinions aloud from the bench, though rare, has historical precedent. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, renowned for her steadfast dissents, notably criticized the court's decision to weaken a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

Known for her distinctive jabots, Justice Ginsburg once articulated the significance of vocalizing dissents, stating, "It signals that, in the dissenters’ view, the court’s opinion is not merely mistaken but profoundly misguided," as noted in a 2009 speech.

Reflecting on the influence of dissenting opinions, Ginsburg highlighted their potential impact both internally among justices and externally in shaping public discourse. Occasionally, dissenting opinions prompt justices to reconsider their positions before final rulings are rendered.

Justice Jackson echoed this sentiment in her recent dissent, suggesting that legislative action could rectify the implications of the ruling. Her dissent, akin to Ginsburg's advocacy in the past, may serve as a call to congressional action.

Despite the limited public broadcast of opinion announcements, legal scholars like Carolyn Shapiro from Chicago-Kent College of Law suggested that justices might explore alternative avenues to critique court decisions and engage a broader audience.

"Enhanced public critique of court decisions across various platforms would signify a significant departure," Shapiro noted, highlighting potential shifts in judicial communication strategies amid evolving public and legal landscapes.