On April 15, an unusual statement from the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office was released, where Justice Sonia Sotomayor apologized for her “inappropriate” and “hurtful” remarks about Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This apology was related to comments she made about Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Noem v. Perdomo, where she insinuated that Kavanaugh’s privileged background influenced his perspective on immigration stops.
This occurrence was not solitary. On April 13, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered pointed remarks at Yale Law School about her conservative colleagues’ emergency orders, describing them as “scratch-paper musings” that seem “oblivious.” Justice Clarence Thomas also expressed discontent with the current collegial atmosphere, hinting that it was unlike the court he had joined, which handled differences as friends.
Instances like these have happened before but are not commonplace in the court’s history. Historical disputes, like those between John Jay and John Rutledge, John Marshall and William Johnson, and perhaps most infamously, the feud between Chief Justice Roger Taney and Justice Benjamin Curtis over the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, set precedents for internal court conflicts. These disputes weren’t merely personal but highlighted significant ideological divides within the court.
In the early 20th century, tensions were evident when Justice James McReynolds displayed overt antisemitism towards Justice Louis Brandeis, and later against Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Such animosities persisted across generations, as exemplified by the mid-20th century rivalry between Justices Hugo Black and Robert Jackson, and the contentious relations involving Felix Frankfurter.
Despite these historical rifts, the court persisted, often reflecting the larger sociopolitical climate. The numerous disputes do not seem to have affected the institution’s continuity or function permanently. While present situations may appear particularly volatile, they are not unprecedented. Observers note that many recent tensions arise from the interim docket’s distinctive characteristics, leading to more public dissent among justices.
Looking at past enfranchisements and reconciliations, it’s likely the court will continue its roles and responsibilities effectively, drawing lessons from history. The court has navigated divisions before and, despite tensions, is expected to weather them this time around, too. It is yet to be seen if current strains will develop into entrenched disputes or remain temporary tensions within the court’s evolving dynamics.
You can find more detailed insights and the historical context of these judicial disputes on SCOTUSBlog.