Justice Samuel Alito issued a testy response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from the bench on June 25, 2026, in a highly unusual courtroom exchange that prompted the Supreme Court to issue a rare public clarification the following day.
During the announcement of opinions that Thursday, Alito finished summarizing his majority opinion in an asylum case and paused. Sotomayor then read a lengthy oral dissent, an uncommon move that justices use to signal strong disagreement with the majority’s decision. When she concluded, Alito did not proceed to his next opinion as expected. Instead, looking as if “he had just bitten into a lemon,” according to NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read,” and launched into an extemporaneous rebuttal.
Alito’s reaction appeared to suggest he had been blindsided by Sotomayor’s oral dissent. However, the Supreme Court’s public information office contradicted this account the next day. “Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench,” the court said in a statement. “It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
The exchange came in a case dealing with asylum policy at the U.S. border. Alito authored the 6-3 majority opinion allowing the Trump administration to implement a “metering” policy that prevents asylum seekers from physically setting foot on U.S. soil to present their claims. The policy, first used under the Obama administration and formalized during Trump’s first term, allows federal agents stationed at ports of entry to turn back asylum applicants before they can be formally inspected by officials.
Sotomayor’s dissent was forceful and historically grounded. She referenced the 1930s episode when the United States turned away the St. Louis, a ship carrying Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. Hundreds of those refugees were later killed in the Holocaust. In her rebuttal, Alito argued the metering policy had been used by both Democratic and Republican administrations and described it as “orderly and humane.”
The Supreme Court’s public statement was itself notable. Justices rarely explain their conduct or issue clarifications about courtroom interactions, making the statement a sign of the institutional concern the bench exchange had generated. The statement made clear that Alito had been formally notified through proper channels—Sotomayor’s chambers had sent written notice to Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, as is customary when a justice plans to read a dissent aloud. Verbal dissents are rare and typically underscore a justice’s deep conviction that the majority has erred.
The incident underscored ongoing tensions on a court increasingly divided along ideological lines, particularly as it approaches the end of its current term with several high-profile cases still pending. Earlier in the year, it was Sotomayor who had to issue a public apology after criticizing Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s writing in another immigration case. “I regret my hurtful comments,” Sotomayor said in April, adding that she had apologized to her colleague. The Alito-Sotomayor exchange marks another rare moment of visible friction on the bench.
Sources
- NPR — Reported the initial exchange, Alito’s statement, and the court’s clarification; included details on the asylum case and Sotomayor’s dissent referencing the St. Louis and Nazi-era refugees.
- CNN — Confirmed the court’s statement that Alito was notified in advance and that the reaction was a misunderstanding; provided context on the metering policy and its history under both Obama and Trump administrations.
- Politico — Reported the 6-3 ruling and the metering policy’s origins and expansion.
