Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch have filed nine joint opinions arguing the Supreme Court should review specific cases. These opinions cover a wide range of issues from police searches to property rights. The pair often disagrees on other matters but finds common ground on liberty issues. They have united to challenge government overreach in nine separate legal disputes.
The Supreme Court usually hears less than 1% of the thousands of cases it receives each year. Four justices must agree to take a case for it to move forward. Sometimes justices write opinions when the Court refuses to hear a case. These documents explain why they think the law needs attention. According to Reason Magazine, Sotomayor and Gorsuch have worked together on nine of these filings.
Shared Views on Police Power
Their latest joint opinion appeared in October 2026 regarding a case from Chicago. Exercises of the State’s police power immune to takings claims is what the case asks, and under what circumstances. This specifically concerns the government taking cars without pay because drivers failed to pay parking tickets. Sotomayor wrote that claiming law enforcement authority might not be enough to avoid paying for seized property. She noted that due deference to state police powers should not erase constitutional rights.
They also looked at a 2019 case involving a defendant in Oklahoma. The legal issue centered on whether penalizing an individual “for being found in the United States a second time” constituted a violation. The defendant had been barred from “leav[ing] the Eastern District of Oklahoma” while on supervised release. The justices questioned if this punishment broke the Double Jeopardy Clause. This shows their shared interest in how federal criminal statutes are applied.
Questions on Search and Seizure
The duo has also focused on the Fourth Amendment in multiple filings. In 2020, they questioned if game wardens violated rights by “linger[ing]” for fifteen minutes on private land. Their opinion noted the officers were “peering” through a garage window to find evidence. Justice Kagan joined this specific opinion with the two of them. They argued these actions might require a warrant under the Constitution.
A 2025 case examined “whether and to what extent the Fourth Amendment” prohibits arrests without warrants for minor offenses. This applies to arrests made outside the presence of the arresting officer. Their filings suggest the current laws might not protect citizens enough from police actions. They believe the Court needs to clarify these rules for future cases.
Clarity in Federal Laws
Their alliance extends to how federal laws are written and enforced. In 2019, Gorsuch wrote a majority opinion that Sotomayor supported. They struck down a law that added prison time when a gun was used in certain crimes. The law was too vague to pass constitutional tests. Gorsuch stated that “when Congress passes a vague law,” courts must not create a clearer replacement under our Constitution but instead declare the law null and urge Congress to act again.
This principle appears in other cases they have reviewed together. They challenged a rule about sentencing reductions for defendants who notify prosecutors early. They also questioned if the public has a right to see opinions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These cases show a consistent pattern of demanding clear rules from the government. The justices insist that vague laws or secret procedures harm liberty.
Sotomayor and Gorsuch continue to file these opinions even when the full Court declines to act. They urge lower courts to be careful when reviewing these specific legal questions. Their work highlights a rare cross-ideological agreement on the limits of state power. The Court has yet to take up many of these specific arguments for a full ruling.
