Sotomayor Accuses Conservative Justices of Ignoring Law, Misreading Government
Sonia Sotomayor told an audience at the University of Oklahoma‑Tulsa on Wednesday that several of her Supreme Court colleagues act unethically and lack basic knowledge of how the U.S. government functions. She spoke during a moderated discussion on the three tiers of the federal judiciary.
During the discussion, Sotomayor explained that district judges “do justice for the parties before them,” while circuit judges “ensure no error in law.” She warned that the Supreme Court “is thinking about what the law should be rather than what the law actually is.”
Sotomayor added that “some” of her fellow justices “don’t understand” the structure of American government, linking the remark to concerns about declining civic education. She framed the comment while discussing the health of democratic institutions.
She specifically criticized the doctrine of the unitary executive, asserting that it “overturns the checks and balances the Constitution created.” Sotomayor said the theory threatens the balance of power among the branches.
The justice’s remarks follow the Supreme Court’s 6‑3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter (2026), which upheld President Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and overturned longstanding precedent that allowed Congress to limit a president’s power to remove heads of independent agencies. Sotomayor dissented in that case.
Since joining the bench, Sotomayor has frequently voted to expand constitutional interpretations, most notably in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and in her 2022 dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which she said invented a constitutional right to abortion. She has consistently supported outcomes aligned with her progressive judicial philosophy.
Earlier this year, she mocked Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s immigration enforcement opinion, saying he “probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour,” before issuing an apology for the “hurtful” remarks. The apology acknowledged the comments were inappropriate.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has also taken public swipes at the court’s conservative majority, labeling recent rulings an “existential threat to the rule of law.” She accused her colleagues of politicizing a race‑based redistricting case, prompting a rebuke from Justice Samuel Alito.
Both justices’ remarks have intensified public debate over the Supreme Court’s independence and the role of personal ideology in judicial decision‑making. The exchanges highlight growing tensions between the Court’s ideological factions.
Shawn Fleetwood, staff writer for The Federalist and 2025 Dao Prize winner, reported from Washington. His analysis was published in a recent article.
