SCOTUS Opinions on Stops based upon race, ethnicity, language, location, or occupation

Newsweek article by Jenna Subdel. “Sonia Sotomayor takes swipe at Brett Kavanaugh over Supreme Court dispute.”

I can not find the link to it. It is a Newsweek article which says a lot about arbitrary stops of people who look Hispanic, etc. because they may be in the United Sates illegally. Or you look like you might be guilty so I will stop you and ask for identification. If you have a passport? It comes as an important document to have. Mayb, do not leave home without it.

~~~~~~~

“Sonia Sotomayor takes swipe at Brett Kavanaugh over Supreme Court dispute.” NewsWeek

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: He “probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” This was said with regard to another SCOTUS justice. With regard to all the of SCOTUS Justices? Clarence Thomas more likely than not did work doing some type of manual labor.

In a Newsweek report . . .

A comment by Justice Sonia Sotomayor was made with regard to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in an immigration case. Justice Sotomayer: “he probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” Reported by Bloomberg Law. The comment was made with regard to “Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in an immigration case.”

Sotomayor did not openly identify Brett Kavanaugh as making such a remark while at an event hosted by the University of Kansas School of Law. The justice said,

“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops. This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”

I suspect this may be true with many of our senators, representatives, and other elected officials. Back to the article and some explanation as to why Sotomayor said what she did.

“In a September 8, 2025, order, the Supreme Court’s majority issued a stay temporarily pausing a lower court order that prevented the federal government from stopping individuals based on their race or ethnicity, language, location or occupation. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, while Sotomayor wrote a dissent. 

In the concurring opinion, Kavanaugh said that when individuals who are legally in this country are stopped, ‘the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.’ 

Sotomayor did not name Kavanaugh at the event, but she expressed the financial impact these detentions could have on hourly workers.”

It is interesting how what may begin as a question or two ends up as potentially going to the police station. Sotomayor . . .

“Those hours that they took you away, nobody’s paying that person. And that makes a difference between a meal for him and his kids that night and maybe just cold supper.”

Many of these people are hourly workers and do not get paid even if the call their bosses. And then what would you say to them? And would you still have a job in either case being late or taken to jail? The impact of such random stops is lost to the community and only the worker suffers. You are guilty till proven innocent. How long does that take?

Sotomayor writes as a person who perceives what is happening under this president and which is tolerated by a Congress obsessed in the politics of being a Republican or Democrat. They forget whose vote placed them in office. The public pays for their ignorance and SCOTUS forgets. Sotomayor . . .

. . . wrote her dissent on the September order “not as a Latina who’s insulted.” Stating . . .

“I was not talking as a Latino justice. I was talking about a justice who respects precedent. And I was explaining why that precedent is being violated.” 

In her dissent, she said Kavanaugh’s opinion “relegates the interests of U. S. citizens and individuals with legal status to a single sentence, positing that the Government will free these individuals as soon as they show they are legally in the United States.” 

In other words, you are guilty until you prove otherwise. This leaves you with few alternatives. You do have to submit to an officer taking you into custody. Typically, there are no apologies afterwards. And Kavanaugh sees no issue with this while Sotomayor does. Justice Sonia Sotomayor . . .

“Life experiences teach you to think more broadly and to see things others may not. And when I have a moment where I can express that on behalf of people who have no other voice, then I’m being given a very rare privilege.” 

And Justice Brett Kavanaugh?

“Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings.” 

The term reasonable suspicion is being abused by this president, ICE, and other government entities. Define brief . . .

“Sonia Sotomayor takes swipe at Brett Kavanaugh over Supreme Court dispute,” Newsweek

“Sotomayor Blasts Supreme Court’s ‘Unconscionably Irreconcilable’ Decision,” Newsweek