Supreme Court judges don’t always get along, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor illustrate that point. Appointed by Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama respectively, Gorsuch and Sotomayor sharply disagree on nearly all the most polarizing issues of the day, with Gorsuch being predictably conservative and Sotomayor just as reliably liberal-leaning. Gorsuch even controversially refused to wear a COVID mask during the pandemic despite Chief Justice John Roberts asking him to do so to accommodate Sotomayor (who has diabetes and is therefore at risk of COVID complications). Sotomayor wound up working from home.
Yet despite this long history of disagreement, the two saw eye to eye on a key civil rights issue on Monday.
“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concerns about ‘police power’ were echoed by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch on Monday,” reported Newsweek’s Andrew Stanton. “The court denied review of the case O’Donnell v. City of Chicago.”
He added, “The case asked the court to resolve the question of whether the city’s practice of impounding and selling a driver’s car after two unpaid parking tickets and keeping the proceeds, without offsetting the ticket debt or refunding the surplus, is an unconstitutional taking. It raised major questions about the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and police power.”
In her decision, Sotomayor stated that “I have serious concerns about that conclusion, which implicates a Circuit split over whether, and under what circumstances, exercises of the State’s police power are immune to takings claims. Because that split would continue to benefit from further percolation, however, and because this case is not the best vehicle to resolve the split, I concur in the Court’s denial of certiorari.”
Gorsuch concurred with the decision.
In June, the two had a much more testy public relationship.
Justice Samuel Alito had finished reading his decision over migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. After he finished his decision on why it was a “perfectly legitimate for the administration to do — to block these asylum seekers,” Sotomayor issued a dissent to discuss the “moral imperative of allowing asylum seekers who are fleeing serious persecution from coming to America, allowing them to come to America.”
She added, “The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not.” Alito reported sat stone-faced during her dissent, then said that “If I had known what the dissent was going to say I would have explained my ruling more.”