2026-06-26T10:00:26.022Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/politics/alito-sotomayor-supreme-court-immigration
当重大裁决公布时，大多数最高法院大法官都会表现出一种刻意的无动于衷。
无论他们在 elevated 审判席上宣读裁决时多么反对同僚的决定，他们都会面无表情。或者，无论多数派大法官多么反感罕见的口头异议陈述，他们都会避免在法庭上流露情绪。
但塞缪尔·阿利托是个例外。
阿利托曾有过明显表现出恼怒或怀疑的前科——2013年，露丝·巴德·金斯伯格大法官宣读意见书时，他明显翻了白眼，当时还登上了新闻头条。而周四，他再次在索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官面前显露了愤怒。
阿利托向旁听者暗示，索托马约尔就他在美墨边境难民政策争端中支持特朗普政府的意见书提出口头异议，事先完全没让他知情。
“要是早知道会有异议发言，我本会在审判席陈述中补充很多内容，”索托马约尔结束冗长的陈述后，阿利托勉强压制住怒火说道。
尽管周四这一幕打破了美国最高法院这座国家最高法庭的刻板礼仪，但在某些方面，这正是典型的阿利托作风。他的保守派立场在一桩又一桩案件中占据上风，但他却总是流露出自怨自艾的情绪。
今年是他在审判席的第20个年头，此前一段时间，一些观察人士曾猜测阿利托暴躁的态度是否意味着他因极度不满而即将退休。但今年早些时候，与阿利托关系密切的人士向福克斯新闻透露，他至少会再留任一个会期。（今年3月，阿利托在费城出席一场晚宴时突发疾病，被送往医院。法庭官员对此事保密了近两周，直到CNN进行询问才公开。）
最高法院的年度庭审始于10月，目前已进入收官阶段。周四的风波始于美国东部时间上午10点刚过，大法官们开始公布剩余12起案件中的4起。
首先，布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官宣读了一份意见书，支持孟山都公司，驳回了一名密苏里男子的过失警告诉讼。该男子称自己因使用农达除草剂患上癌症。卡瓦诺表示，联邦法律优先于该诉讼，因为各州不能要求在农药标签上添加超出联邦监管范围的信息；美国环境保护署从未要求在该除草剂标签上添加此类癌症警告。
随后，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨宣布，阿利托代表法庭就三起案件发表意见。
阿利托仅用了几分钟时间解释一起第二修正案相关裁决，该裁决推翻了一项夏威夷州法律，该法律禁止在向公众开放的私人场所携带手枪。随后，他又用了几分钟时间详细说明涉及美国南部边境难民政策的裁决。
https://www.cnn.com/
最高法院大法官塞缪尔·阿利托指责索尼娅·索托马约尔事先未告知就提出异议
4:47 • 来源：CNN
后一起裁决围绕移民法中的一个短语展开，旨在界定“抵达美国”的时间点以及哪些人有资格寻求庇护。阿利托表示，只有当难民踏上美国领土时，才可启动庇护程序。他以6票对3票的裁决推翻了下级法院的观点，下级法院曾认为，身处边境附近且正在办理入境手续的难民可启动庇护筛查程序。
他表示，共有六名大法官签署了该意见书，结果显示均为共和党任命的保守派大法官。他补充说，有三名大法官提出了异议：索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊。这三位由民主党任命的自由派大法官在本届庭审期的一系列裁决中均处于劣势。
在洁白的大理石法庭内，此前的节奏一直很快。三份意见书在约9分钟内就宣读完毕。
但随后索托马约尔开始宣读异议意见。
戏剧性场面随即上演：她首先谈到了难民的绝望处境，并回忆起1939年，一艘载有约900名逃离纳粹德国和大屠杀的犹太人的“圣路易斯号”轮船被美国拒绝入境。该船同样被古巴和加拿大拒之门外。轮船返回欧洲后，许多犹太难民陷入德国控制区，正如索托马约尔周四当庭讲述的那样，其中超过250人在大屠杀中遇难。
她表示，二战以来，基于国际条约和难民法修订案形成的美国庇护保护制度，确保任何在陆地边境或入境口岸的人都可申请庇护，即便尚未踏上美国领土。
她指出，在存在争议的“计量放行”政策下，联邦特工实际阻止了人们从墨西哥越境。她宣称多数派对相关法规的解读“极其错误”。
索托马约尔周四恰好年满72岁，她的发言持续了10分钟多一点，最后以提及自由女神像的灯光作结。在她宣读异议的大部分时间里，76岁的阿利托一直直视法庭旁听者。有时他会闭上眼睛，双手交叠放在身前。
法庭禁止携带摄像设备，因此阿利托多年来的表情从未被录像记录下来。（不过2010年有一个时刻被全国电视直播捕捉到：在国情咨文演讲中，时任总统巴拉克·奥巴马对“联合公民诉联邦选举委员会”案的裁决发表评论，该裁决为企业在选举中投入更多资金打开了大门，阿利托当时口型表示“不是事实”。这一幕被电视摄像机拍到后，引发了全网热议。）
目前没有任何一位大法官的审判席陈述会对外公开，所有旁听者都被禁止携带任何电子设备。判决日的戏剧性场面通常只有少数记者、部分政府律师以及幸运获得旁听席座位的游客才能亲眼见证。
直到阿利托再次开始发言，准备宣布下一起同样涉及移民争议的案件时，人们才清楚索托马约尔的发言让他措手不及。他表示，自己事先并不知道她会进行口头异议陈述，并暗示他本会采取更多措施为多数派立场辩护。
在随后的即兴发言中，阿利托指出，有两届政府都支持在不堪重负的入境口岸阻止人们越境的政策。（奥巴马政府于2016年启动了该政策，随后特朗普首届政府将其正式化。拜登政府废除了该政策。）
https://www.cnn.com/
2010年：阿利托反驳奥巴马
1:03 • 来源：CNN
通常情况下，只有持有多数意见的大法官才会宣读节选内容。在极少数情况下，通常是在6月底棘手案件结案时，异议大法官会被要求在审判席上发言，以额外突出反对观点。
打算进行口头异议的大法官通常会提前告知同僚。对于索托马约尔是否从未提前告知阿利托自己的发言计划，还是在他们准备登上审判席的最后一刻才告知，最高法院并未回应CNN的问询。
但在场人士看来，阿利托在两起移民案件之间停顿了足够久的时间，这表明至少在那一刻，他知道索托马约尔想要发言。
索托马约尔的激烈情绪在起草阶段就应该已经显露。阿利托的意见书长达18页，而索托马约尔的异议意见书几乎是其两倍，达到35页。
在阿利托的书面意见中，他在脚注中加入了一句话，或许本想向全神贯注的旁听者阐述，以反驳索托马约尔的核心主张。
“主要异议的核心是针对政府政策选择的激烈论证，”他写道，“但我们既没有能力也没有权力评估并推翻这种选择。”
阿利托从未当庭宣读这句话。相反，在对索托马约尔进行了几句斥责后，他说道：“我将继续处理下一起案件。”
Alito’s testy reaction to Sotomayor underscores tensions at Supreme Court
2026-06-26T10:00:26.022Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/politics/alito-sotomayor-supreme-court-immigration
When major rulings are announced, most Supreme Court justices practice a kind of studied impassivity.
No matter how much they oppose a colleague’s decision as it’s delivered from the elevated bench, they sit stone-faced. Alternatively, no matter how much justices in the majority resent the rare oral dissenting statement, they avoid betraying emotion in the courtroom.
But then there’s Samuel Alito.
Alito, who has a history of reacting with visible annoyance or incredulity – his pronounced eye-rolling as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read an opinion made headlines in 2013 – let his anger flash Thursday at Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Alito suggested to spectators that she had blindsided him with her oral dissent to his opinion favoring the Trump administration in a dispute over refugee policy at the southern border.
“There’s much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read,” Alito said, barely holding back his ire, after Sotomayor had finished her lengthy statement.
While Thursday’s episode broke the staid decorum at the nation’s highest court, in some ways it was vintage Alito. His conservatism has been prevailing in case after case, yet he exudes a sense of aggrievement.
For much of this year, his 20th on the bench, some observers wondered if Alito’s testy attitude signaled sufficient misery that he might be nearing retirement. But people close to Alito passed word to Fox News earlier this year that he would be staying for at least another session. (In March, Alito fell ill while attending a dinner in Philadelphia and was taken the hospital. Court officials kept the episode quiet for nearly two weeks, until questioned by CNN.)
The Supreme Court is in the final days of its annual term that starts in October. Thursday’s drama began shortly after 10 a.m. ET as the justices began announcing four of a dozen remaining cases.
First, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered an opinion favoring Monsanto Company over a Missouri man who brought a failure-to-warn case claiming he had developed cancer from use of the Roundup herbicide. Kavanaugh said federal law preempted the lawsuit because states cannot require information on a pesticide label that goes beyond federal regulation; the Environmental Protection Agency has never required such cancer warnings on the herbicide.
Chief Justice John Roberts then announced that Alito had the court’s opinion for three cases.
Alito took only a few minutes to explain a Second Amendment decision, which struck down a Hawaii law restricting handguns on private property open to the public, and then a few more minutes to detail the decision involving refugee policy at the US southern border.
https://www.cnn.com/
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito accuses Justice Sonia Sotomayor of blindsiding him
4:47 • Source: CNN
That latter one turned on a phrase in immigration law, testing when someone “arrives in the United States” and is eligible to seek asylum. Alito said that only when a refugee steps foot in the US may he or she begin the asylum process. His 6-3 opinion reversed the view of lower court judges that would have allowed refugees near a border and in the process of arriving to begin the asylum screening.
He said that six justices had signed the opinion, all the Republican-appointed conservatives, it turned out. He added that three justices had dissented, Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Those are the three Democratic appointed liberals who have been on the downside of a series of rulings this term.
In the white marble courtroom, the pace so far was brisk. Three opinions had been delivered in about nine minutes.
But then Sotomayor began reading her dissent.
The drama was immediate as she first addressed the desperation of refugees and recalled that a ship, the M.S. St. Louis, carrying some 900 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and the Holocaust was turned away from the United States in 1939. The ship was also turned away from Cuba and Canada. After the ship returned to Europe, many of the Jewish refugees became trapped under German control, and, as Sotomayor related aloud on Thursday, more than 250 of them were killed in the Holocaust.
She said that US asylum protections since World War II, arising from international treaties and revisions to refugee law, ensure that anyone at a land border or port of entry could apply for asylum, even if not yet on US soil.
She said that under the disputed “metering” practice, federal agents had physically blocked people from crossing in from Mexico. She declared the majority’s interpretation of the relevant statute was “egregiously wrong.”
Sotomayor, who happened to turn 72 on Thursday, went on for just over 10 minutes, closing with a reference to the light of the Statue of Liberty. During much of her reading, Alito, 76, looked straight out at courtroom spectators. At times he shut his eyes, his hands clasped in front of him.
The courtroom is closed to cameras, so Alito’s expressions through the years have not been caught on tape. (There was a moment, however, in 2010, that was captured on national television. At a State of the Union address, then-President Barack Obama’s characterization of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which opened the door to more money from corporations in elections, prompted Alito to mouth “not true.” Spotted by TV cameras, the response went viral.)
None of the current justices make their bench statements public, and all spectators are barred from bringing in any electronic devices. The dramatic tableau of decision days is often witnessed first-hand only by a few journalists, some government lawyers, and visitors fortunate enough to obtain seats in the public section.
It was only when Alito began speaking again, as he was to announce his next case, also an immigration controversy, that it became clear that Sotomayor had caught him off guard. He said he hadn’t known that she would be offering that dissenting bench statement and suggested he would have taken further steps to defend the majority’s position.
In the spontaneous remarks that followed, Alito noted that two different administrations had backed the policy of keeping people from crossing the border at overwhelmed ports of entry. (The Obama administration began the practice in 2016, and then the first Trump administration formalized it. The Biden administration rescinded the policy.)
https://www.cnn.com/
2010: Alito disagrees with Obama
1:03 • Source: CNN
Usually, only the justice with the majority opinion reads excerpts. In rare instances, often at the end of June, when the toughest cases are resolved, a dissenting justice is compelled to speak from the bench and draw extra attention to an opposing view.
Justices who plan to make an oral dissent typically let their colleagues know ahead of time. The court did not respond to CNN’s queries on whether Sotomayor had never told Alito what was coming, or whether she did it at the last minute, as they were preparing to ascend the bench.
To those in the room, it appeared Alito paused enough between the two immigration cases to suggest that, at least, in the moment, he knew she wanted to speak.
Sotomayor’s fervor would have been evident during the drafting process. Alito’s opinion was 18 pages. Sotomayor’s was nearly twice that at 35 pages.
In Alito’s writing, he included a line in a footnote that he might have wanted to relate to rapt spectators, to counter Sotomayor’s central claim.
“The centerpiece of the principal dissent is an impassioned argument against the administrations’ policy choice,” he wrote, “but we have neither the ability nor the authority to assess and countermand that choice.”
Alito never said that aloud. Rather, after a few words of rebuke to Sotomayor, he said, “I will move on to the next case.”