In September 2025, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote what I believe will go down as, even by the standards of Supreme Court opinions, some of the most embarrassingly out-of-touch dreck I have ever had occasion to read. Over the course of a ten-page solo concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, Kavanaugh—a 61-year-old white guy who has been a federal judge for fully one-third of his life—helpfully explained why the Supreme Court’s decision to greenlight racial profiling by federal immigration agents is no big deal at all, if you think about it.
The case was a challenge to ICE’s practice of detaining people in the Los Angeles area based solely on their race, their location, their occupation, and the language officers hear them speaking. But Kavanaugh asserts that people subjected to such stops are not meaningfully harmed, since they can “promptly go free” after a “typically brief” period of questioning.
Set aside, for a moment, the fact that this is simply not how immigration enforcement works in the real world. It also suggests that when Brett Kavanaugh sees Nazi soldiers giving “show me your papers” orders in the movies, he does not necessarily understand that they are the bad guys.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Trump administration, with a friendly assist from Kavanaugh, had effectively decreed “that all Latinos, U. S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.” In the months since Vasquez Perdomo, these detentions have become known as “Kavanaugh stops.” Generally speaking, if you are a Supreme Court justice whose name pops up in connection with viral videos of ICE thugs clotheslining anyone caught speaking Spanish in the immediate vicinity of a Home Depot, that is a very good sign you did a very bad job.
Sotomayor’s remarks at an event at the University of Kansas School of Law earlier this week suggest that she is not done being annoyed about any of this. “I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, ‘These are only temporary stops,’” Sotomayor told the students, per Bloomberg. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” (She did not mention Kavanaugh by name, but given that Kavanaugh grew up as the son of two lawyers in a wealthy D.C. suburb, and that, again, no other justice joined the concurrence she was criticizing, it is not especially difficult to discern whom Sotomayor was talking about.)
Sotomayor went on to detail the real-world consequences of, in Kavanaugh’s words, even “brief” periods of having to sit, handcuffed, in the back of a rented SUV until cops decide to let you go: “Those hours that they took you away—nobody’s paying that person,” she said. “And that makes a difference between a meal for him and his kids that night, and maybe just cold supper.”
Within the decorum-obsessed legal profession, this qualifies as wild stuff. Typically, Supreme Court justices bend over backwards to keep their comments about one another as banal as possible, emphasizing their deep, abiding respect for one another, and the professional (never personal) nature of their occasional disagreements. In this context, singling out a colleague for having no idea what life is like for people who are not double Yalies is as close as a Supreme Court justice gets to publicly suggesting that another Supreme Court justice is full of shit.
In the years since Kavanaugh’s confirmation in 2018, it has become very apparent that the other justices, diplomatic though they may be in polite company, kind of hate his guts. He has had a hard time writing opinions that earn the five votes necessary for a majority, and when he does write majority opinions, they are often sloppy enough to generate annoyed critiques from justices to his right and to his left.
As a result, Kavanaugh’s calling card has become the weird, incoherent solo concurrence in which he supplies wrong answers to questions no one asked, all in the cadence of a college sophomore padding a final paper using ChatGPT. I honestly think none of the conservatives joined Kavanaugh’s opinion in Vasquez Perdomo because, even though they were fine with giving Trump the result he wanted, none of them wanted to attach their names to a piece of writing that failed so badly to justify that result.
Even at the time of his nomination, Kavanaugh was, on paper, one of the weaker Supreme Court nominees in recent memory—a replacement-level GOP political operative whose primary qualifications, in Trump’s eyes, were his Federalist Society bona fides, his flexible approach to precedent, and his expansive views of executive power whenever the president is a Republican. If anything, his tenure as a justice has shown that critics who argued that Kavanaugh was unfit for the job actually overestimated his ability to do it. Sotomayor’s willingness to set aside the rules for a minute to air out her irritation in public—in front of a bunch of law students, no less—suggests that Kavanaugh’s colleagues are as tired of him as everyone else.
As always, you can find everything we publish at ballsandstrikes.org, or follow us on Bluesky at @ballsandstrikes.org. You can get in touch by emailing us at contact@ballsandstrikes.org. Thanks for reading.
This Week In Balls & Strikes
The Supreme Court Sounds Pretty Skeptical of States That Want Protect Your Right to Vote, Madiba Dennie
By signaling their willingness to intervene in state court decisions that protect voting rights, the conservative justices are building a one-way anti-democratic ratchet.
How the Supreme Court Made the First Amendment a Tool For Getting the Results the Justices Want, G.S. Hans
The right to free speech is sacred in this country—especially if your speech is speech that Neil Gorsuch likes.
Kentucky Republicans Are Trying to Impeach a Judge For Acknowledging That Racism Exists, Steve Kennedy
Lawmakers are no longer even trying to pretend that their impeachment efforts are serious.
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated
How an Alito Retirement Could Allow Trump to Reshape the Supreme Court, Matt Ford, The New Republic
“Trump’s first three choices were in their late forties or early fifties when nominated, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh marking the upper bound at 53 years old. A child born today can expect them to still be handing down rulings when he or she starts college.”
DOJ Says Laws Congress Passed to Prevent Another Nixon Don’t Apply to Trump, Shirin Ali, Slate
“In practice, it means a man who once claimed he was ‘the most transparent president in history,’ but was also indicted for mishandling classified documents, can legally walk away from the White House with any document he so pleases and never have to publicly report a single one.”
This Week In Obscure Photos of Supreme Court Justices On Getty Images
If the Starr Inquisitor had discovered that Bill Clinton had asssulted a girl in high school, does anyone honestly believe that BK would have let him off the hook merely because Clinton was a minor at the time? Without his wealthy father, BK would have ended up in bankruptcy court for his $200K bar tab at the ballpark. Knowing what we know now, Thomas and Kavanaugh would both get laughed out of the Character&Fitness Cmte. The Chairwoman of that Cmte told me so herself.
BK = poor little rich boy