Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s latest dissent was less a legal argument and more a political performance. In her response to the Court’s decision allowing federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, she painted a picture of people being “grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed” simply for speaking Spanish or looking Latino.
The order did not suspend the Constitution or erase the Fourth Amendment. It simply allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to resume operations without being blocked by a lower court that had gone too far. Federal agents are still bound by the law. Americans still have full protections against unlawful searches and seizures. To suggest otherwise is misleading at best, and flat-out lying at worst.
A Pattern of Lies
This is not the first time Sotomayor has used her position to frame the Court’s conservative majority as a threat to basic freedoms. Whether the issue is voting rights, policing, or immigration, her dissents follow the same pattern. She warns of democracy unraveling, claims rights are being erased, and accuses her colleagues of shredding the Constitution.
The reality is very different and, over time, these warnings lose credibility. Worse, they risk fueling anger that spills far beyond the courtroom.
From Rhetoric to Violence
That danger is not theoretical. Earlier this year, a politically motivated gunman opened fire outside a Jewish museum in Washington, D.C., chanting “Free, free Palestine” as he killed two people. Investigators say the suspect had ties to radical left-wing groups and had been influenced by rhetoric that framed institutions as complicit in oppression.
It is a real reminder of what can happen when public figures tell people that their rights are being erased or that the government is targeting them. Some will take those words literally, and some will act on them. When a justice of the Supreme Court uses that kind of language, the risk is even greater. Her words carry authority, and when she misrepresents a ruling as an assault on freedom, she undermines trust in the Court itself and puts federal law enforcement officials in danger.
Sotomayor’s dissent gave politicians on the left exactly the script they wanted. Gov. Gavin Newsom accused the Court of leading a “parade of racial terror.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the ruling “un-American.” Both repeated her framing and ignored the actual issue: whether federal authorities can enforce immigration law without a local judge blocking standard procedures.
That is what happens when justices blur the line between law and activism. They give political leaders talking points at the expense of clarity. And they erode the public’s ability to understand what the Court actually decided.
Bottom Line
No rights were lost in this case. The Constitution remains intact. Immigration enforcement is still subject to the same safeguards it always has been. What changed was that the Court lifted an overreaching order that tied the hands of federal officers.
Sotomayor could have explained that since she obviously knows the law. Instead, she chose to warn of non-existent abuses and accuse her colleagues of gutting the Constitution. That was not legal reasoning. It was political theater.
When a Supreme Court justice feeds that kind of narrative, she is not defending civil rights. She is inciting mistrust, anger, and possibly even violence. That is irresponsible for anyone in public life. Coming from one of the nation’s top judges, it is dangerous.