Sonia Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

2009 - Present

Years in position

15

Prior offices

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

---

United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

---

Education

Bachelor's

Princeton University, 1976

Law

Yale Law School, 1979

Personal

Birthplace

New York, N.Y.

Sonia Sotomayor is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. President Barack Obama (D) nominated her to fill the seat left vacant by David Souter's retirement on June 29, 2009. The Senate confirmed her nomination and she was sworn in on August 8, 2009, becoming the first Hispanic justice to sit on the court.

Sotomayor was born in New York, New York, in 1954. She graduated as valedictorian from Cardinal Spellman High School, a private Catholic school in New York City, in 1972. Sotomayor received an undergraduate degree in history from Princeton University in 1976 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979. At Yale, she co-chaired the Latin American and Native American Students Association and edited the Yale Law Journal.

Sotomayor began her legal career as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan in 1979. She moved into private practice at Pavia & Harcourt in 1984, where she specialized in intellectual property rights and copyright litigation.

President George H.W. Bush (R) nominated Sotomayor to serve on the District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1991; she took the bench in 1992. While on the court, notable rulings included Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc, where her decision ended a Major League Baseball strike, and Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, where her opinion in a Seinfeld-related copyright infringement case became a standard for fair use doctrine.

Sotomayor joined the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998 after President Bill Clinton (D) nominated her to that court in 1997. A notable ruling included her majority opinion in abortion case Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, where the Center brought a case against the Bush administration's 2001 reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule. Sotomayor "found that the Center's free speech claim was ruled out by an earlier opinion ... [and that] the Center lacked standing to pursue [a violation to due process] claim." She also rejected the Center's equal protection claim.

Sotomayor said of her judicial philosophy: "I have always tried to approach the law as a learning process, as one of trying to understanding how other people have approached particular questions. I believe that people really expect the law to have some fixed meaning that gives them some measure of comfort in their human relations."

Recapping Sotomayor's first ten years on the court, Richard Wolf wrote in USA Today in 2019 that "she has been a reliable member of the court's liberal wing." Sotomayor’s notable Supreme Court opinions include her dissent in preferential admissions case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and her joint dissent in abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. She also ruled in the majority in cases that upheld the Affordable Care Act and in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.

Professional career

• 2009 - Present: Associate justice, Supreme Court of the United States
• 1998-2009: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
• 1992-1998: Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
• 1984-1992: Private practice, New York, N.Y.
• 1979-1984: Assistant district attorney, New York County, N.Y.

Early life and education

Sotomayor was born on June 25, 1954, in New York, New York. Her parents were born in Puerto Rico. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian from Cardinal Spellman High School, a private Catholic school in New York City, in 1972. At the time of her confirmation, Sotomayor was the sixth sitting Catholic on the court, alongside Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University with an undergraduate degree in history in 1976. While at Princeton, she received the M. Taylor Pyne Honor Prize. Sotomayor wrote her senior thesis on "The Impact of the Life of Luis Muñoz Marin on the Political and Economic History of Puerto Rico, 1930-1975." After graduating from Princeton University, Sotomayor attended Yale Law School, where she received her J.D. in 1979. She co-chaired the Latin American and Native American Students Association and was published in the Yale Law Journal (where she served as an editor) with the note "Statehood and the Equal Footing Doctrine: The Case for Puerto Rican Seabed Rights," which, as the title suggests, analyzed issues regarding Puerto Rico's ability to maintain rights to its seabed if it pursued statehood.

Approach to the law

Sotomayor is known to be a member of the court's liberal bloc. Recapping her first ten years on the court, Richard Wolf wrote in USA Today in 2019 that "she has been a reliable member of the court's liberal wing."

Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said in 2019 that Sotomayor "is known on the court for her trust in the judicial process, and her cutthroat attitude toward ill-prepared attorneys. She is also known for her kindness toward jurors and the attorneys who work hard to advocate for their clients."

Martin-Quinn score

Sotomayor's Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was -4.21, making her the most liberal justice on the court at that time. Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

Video discussion

Sotomayor spoke at the Library of Congress in February 2018 about her work as a children's author, differences in her work at different levels of federal courts, and how rulings of the court impact future cases. The video of that event is embedded below.

Judicial career

United States Supreme Court (2009 - present)

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Sonia Sotomayor
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 66 days after nomination.
ANominated: June 1, 2009
AABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: January 9-13, 2006
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: July 28, 2009
AConfirmed: August 6, 2009
AVote: 68-31

On May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama (D) nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States to fill the seat of Justice David Souter. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of her confirmation on July 28, 2009, in a 13-6 vote with one Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham, voting in favor. Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 6, 2009, on a vote of 68-31.

Sotomayor became the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice with her confirmation on August 6, 2009. She was the third woman to serve on the nation's highest court at the time of her confirmation.

At the time of Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, Democrats had enough votes to circumvent any Republican attempts to block her confirmation.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1998-2009)

Sotomayor served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit from 1998 until her confirmation as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009.

On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D), Sotomayor was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit by President Bill Clinton (D) on June 25, 1997, to a seat vacated by Daniel Mahoney. Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 2, 1998, on a 67-29-2 vote, receiving her commission on October 7, 1998.

A substantial majority of judicial evaluators at the American Bar Association ranked Sotomayor in 1997 as "well qualified" for a position on the federal appellate bench, while a minority of evaluators found her "qualified."

In filling out her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, Sotomayor wrote that "judges must be extraordinarily sensitive to the impact of their decisions and function within, and respectful of, the Constitution."

For Sotomayor's confirmation materials from 1998, visit the Sotomayor Collection at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library at this link.

Southern District of New York (1992-1998)

Sotomayor's appointment was held up for nearly a year under an anonymous hold, despite approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Unanimously Qualified rating by the American Bar Association. Sotomayor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 11, 1992, by unanimous consent, receiving her commission on August 12, 1992. When she joined the court, she was its youngest judge.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Sotomayor has issued since joining the Supreme Court according to the data on Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute and the website SCOTUSblog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term. Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author of Empirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023-2024 term is from the Empirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

Opinions written by year, Sonia Sotomayor
	2009-2010	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	2016-2017	2017-2018	2018-2019	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022	2022-2023	2023-2024
Opinions	8	7	6	8	8	7	7	7	7	7	5	6	6	5	7
Concurrences	3	9	7	3	6	3	3	4	7	3	9	7	5	6	4
Dissents	4	6	6	5	5	6	5	4	9	9	8	9	13	2	7
Totals	15	22	19	16	19	16	15	15	23	19	22	22	24	13	18

Justice agreement

In the 2023-2024 term, Sotomayor had the highest agreement rate with Elena Kagan. She had lowest agreement rate with Clarence Thomas. In the 2022-2023 term, Sotomayor had the highest agreement rate with Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She had lowest agreement rate with Samuel Alito. This does not include agreements in part.

The table below highlights Sotomayor's agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.

Sonia Sotomayor agreement rates by term, 2017 - Present
Justice	2017-2018	2018-2019	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022	2022-2023	2023-2024
John Roberts	66%	65%	69%	66%	54%	56%	71%
Anthony Kennedy	65%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Clarence Thomas	51%	50%	44%	55%	40%	65%	51%
Ruth Bader Ginsburg	96%	93%	89%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Stephen Breyer	90%	85%	85%	93%	86%	N/A	N/A
Samuel Alito	49%	57%	46%	53%	43%	62%	53%
Elena Kagan	91%	88%	88%	88%	90%	95%	97%
Neil Gorsuch	55%	63%	64%	58%	52%	71%	61%
Brett Kavanaugh	N/A	64%	65%	66%	54%	78%	69%
Amy Coney Barrett	N/A	N/A	N/A	58%	48%	76%	69%
Ketanji Brown Jackson	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	95%	92%

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Sotomayor was in the majority in 71 percent of decisions. Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and were in the majority the least often of all the justices. In the 2022-2023 term, Sotomayor was in the majority in 82 percent of decisions. Sotomayor was in the majority more often than two of the justices.

Since the 2011-2012 term, Sotomayor has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time five times. Across those terms, she has been in the majority an average of 77 percent of the time.

Noteworthy cases

See also: Noteworthy cases heard by current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here.

Since she joined the court through the 2022-2023 term, Sotomayor authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision ten times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision 18 times. The table below details these cases by year.

Sonia Sotomayor noteworthy cases
Year	5-4 majority opinion	8-1 dissenting opinion
Total	10	18
2023-2024	0	0
2022-2023	1	0
2021-2022	1	4
2020-2021	1	4
2019-2020	0	1
2018-2019	1	0
2017-2018	0	0
2016-2017	0	2
2015-2016	0	2
2014-2015	2	2
2013-2014	0	1
2012-2013	1	0
2011-2012	2	2
2010-2011	1	0
2009-2010	0	0

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

Cruz v. Arizona (2023)

See also: Cruz v. Arizona

Justice Sotomayor authored an opinion on Cruz v. Arizona. The court ruled to vacate and remand the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling. According to the Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g), petitioners can challenge their sentences if "there has been a significant change in the law that, if applicable to the defendant’s case, would probably overturn the defendant’s judgment or sentence." Referencing Lynch v. Arizona, Cruz appealed his sentencing to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that Lynch v. Arizona created a significant change in the law. The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed and found that Cruz was not entitled to post-conviction relief.

If a case originated from a state court, the Supreme Court usually will not make rulings on questions of federal law if the state court's decision can be supported by an "adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment." In Cruz v. Arizona, the state of Arizona argued that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to deny Cruz post-conviction relief constituted as an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The Court's decision invalidated Arizona’s ruling denying Cruz post-conviction relief and allows Cruz to receive a new sentencing hearing where he will be able to inform the jury that if he were given a sentence of life in prison, he would be ineligible for parole.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

“	In exceptional cases where a state-court judgment rests on a novel and unforeseeable state-court procedural decision lacking fair or substantial support in prior state law, that decision is not adequate to preclude review of a federal question. The Arizona Supreme Court applied Rule 32.1(g) in a manner that abruptly departed from and directly conflicted with its prior interpretations of that Rule. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion	”
—Justice Sonia Sotomayor

No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022)

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Sotomayor was part of the three-justice dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Sotomayor and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan jointly authored the dissenting opinion. The majority opinion, authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, held that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Alito was joined in the majority by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the majority to uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not to overturn Roe and Casey. Alito wrote:

“	We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category.	”
—Justice Alito

In their dissent, the justices wrote:

“	Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. ... The Constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all. ... Subsequent legal developments have only reinforced Roe and Casey. The Court has continued to embrace all the decisions Roe and Casey cited, decisions which recognize a constitutional right for an individual to make her own choices about “intimate relationships, the family,” and contraception. Casey, 505 U. S., at 857. Roe and Casey have themselves formed the legal foundation for subsequent decisions protecting these profoundly personal choices. As discussed earlier, the Court relied on Casey to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects same-sex intimate relationships. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 578; supra, at 23. The Court later invoked the same set of precedents to accord constitutional recognition to same-sex marriage. See Obergefell, 576 U. S., at 665–666; supra, at 23. In sum, Roe and Casey are inextricably interwoven with decades of precedent about the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. See supra, at 21–24. While the majority might wish it otherwise, Roe and Casey are the very opposite of “‘obsolete constitutional thinking.’” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 236 (1997) (quoting Casey 505 U. S., at 857). Moreover, no subsequent factual developments have undermined Roe and Casey. Women continue to experience unplanned pregnancies and unexpected developments in pregnancies. Pregnancies continue to have enormous physical, social, and economic consequences. Even an uncomplicated pregnancy imposes significant strain on the body, unavoidably involving significant physiological change and excruciating pain. For some women, pregnancy and childbirth can mean life-altering physical ailments or even death. Today, as noted earlier, the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term dwarf those of having an abortion. See supra, at 22. ... With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.	”
—Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan

Scope of judicial review in administrative agencies' actions (2020)

See also: Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

Justice Sotomayor authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, holding that the Board’s refusal to reopen a prior benefits determination is subject to judicial review. Justice Sotomayor was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh.

“	It is also worth noting that judicial review of reopening decisions will be limited. The Board’s decision to grant or deny reopening, while guided by substantive criteria, is ultimately discretionary and therefore subject to reversal only for abuse of discretion. See 20 CFR §261.11; Stovic, 826 F. 3d, at 506; Szostak v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 370 F. 2d 253, 254 (CA2 1966) (Friendly, J., for the court). Most decisions will be upheld under this deferential standard. See ICC v. Locomotive Engineers, 482 U. S. 270, 288 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring). Judicial review plays a modest, but important, role in guarding against decisions that are arbitrary, inconsistent with the standards set by the Board's own regulations, or otherwise contrary to law.	”
—Justice Sotomayor

Tribal hunting treaties (2018)

See also: Herrera v. Wyoming

Sotomayor authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case holding that the Crow Tribe's hunting rights under an 1868 treaty did not expire upon Wyoming's statehood. Sotomayor was joined in the majority by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Sotomayor wrote:

“

The Wyoming courts held that the treaty-protected hunting right expired when Wyoming became a State and, in any event, does not permit hunting in Bighorn National Forest because that land is not "unoccupied." We disagree. The Crow Tribe’s hunting right survived Wyoming’s statehood, and the lands within Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically "occupied" when set aside as a national reserve.

”

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

See also: Supreme Court of the United States (Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. ___ (2014))

Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent in a 7-2 decision to uphold a Michigan constitutional amendment to ban any preferential selection based on sex or race, also known as affirmative action. The amendment was challenged by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and the defendant listed was Bill Schuette (R), attorney general of Michigan.

Justice Sotomayor wrote:

“

The effect of §26 is that a white graduate of a public Michigan university who whishes to pass his historical privilege on to his children may freely lobby the board of that university in favor of an expanded legacy admissions policy, whereas a black Michagander who was denied the opportunity to attend that very university cannot lobby the board in favor of a policy that might give his children a chance that he never had and that they might never have absent that policy.

”

Sotomayor went on to agree with the majority that Michigan did nothing wrong in following the political process to offer an amendment, but wrote that the issue lies in the amendment itself. She wrote that the amendment takes away the ability of university board members to create admission standards that aid minorities but allows ones that aid athletes and legacies, effectively creating uneven admission standards.

Second Circuit cases

During more than a decade as a circuit court judge, Sotomayor heard appeals on more than 3,000 cases and wrote in excess of 380 opinions for the majority. She had five of those decisions reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, with three of them overturned and two upheld. A survey by University of Texas at Austin law professor Stefanie Lindquist found her judgeship to have been moderate with respect to political leanings. Lindquist studied her 226 majority opinions from 2001 to 2009 and found that 38 percent of her opinions could be clearly defined as liberal, while 49 percent of them fell clearly on the conservative end of the spectrum. She tended to be more conservative in criminal cases, where Supreme Court precedent encourages appellate judges to be pro-prosecution. On civil rights issues such as race, gender, and immigration, on the other hand, Lindquist's study found that Sotomayor tended to be more liberal.

Ricci v. DeStefano (2008)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Ricci v. DeStefano, 530 F.3d 87 (2008))

Sotomayor joined a finding in favor of the city of New Haven rejecting a lawsuit filed by 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter claiming race discrimination by the city. New Haven denied promotions following a promotion examination that yielded no black candidates eligible for advancement. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision, stating the decision to cancel the promotions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal employment opportunity. The court found that Sotomayor's ruling would allow the city to "experiment" with tests until they found one that produced "a more desirable racial distribution."

Riverkeeper Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Riverkeeper Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 475 F3d 83 (2007))

Sotomayor found in favor of environmental group Riverkeeper, which challenged an EPA ruling on the Clean Water Act's "best technology" rule involving power plants' need to intake water as weighed against the risk to aquatic life in surrounding waters. In her ruling, she held: "Congress has already specified the relationship between cost and benefits in requiring that the technology designated by EPA be the best available." Sotomayor's decision was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote where the court held that EPA could not weigh the costs of changes to power plants versus the value of organisms in dollar terms, but could consider only what costs "may reasonably be borne" by power plants when determining the best technology rule available.

Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F3d 183 (2002))

In a case involving the Mexico City Policy—announced by President Ronald Reagan (R) in 1984, subsequently rescinded by President Bill Clinton (D), and reauthorized by President George W. Bush (R)—Sotomayor found that the federal government is within its rights to deny federal aid to foreign organizations that support or perform abortions. She dismissed claims by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy that the Mexico City Policy violated the First Amendment right to association as well as Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In her finding, Sotomayor cited the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which authorizes the president "to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for voluntary population planning," as well as multiple Supreme Court precedents. In her decision, Sotomayor wrote, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."

Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation (2000)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 229 F3d 374 (2000))

In this case, Sotomayor found that an inmate living in a halfway house could sue a government contractor for forcing him to climb five flights of stairs despite a heart condition after the inmate suffered a heart attack, fell down the stairs, and injured himself. Sotomayor held "extending Bivens liability to reach private corporations furthers [its] overriding purpose: providing redress for violations of constitutional rights." (Bivens was a 1971 Supreme Court case that allowed some people whose rights have been violated by federal agents to sue.) The Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision in a 5 to 4 ruling, stating that only individual agents, not corporations, could be sued for such violations.

District court cases

Sotomayor wrote several high-profile rulings regarding the Major League Baseball strike of 1994, the Wall Street Journal's publishing of the suicide note left by former Clinton White House counsel Vince Foster, and copyright issues related to a trivia book about the television show Seinfeld. As a federal district judge, Sotomayor had one of her decisions overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (1998)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (1998))

Judge Sotomayor ruled (and her ruling was upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit) that SAT: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test infringed on the copyright of the television show Seinfeld. The case is often used in law schools as a modern application of the fair use doctrine.

Tasini v. New York Times, et al (1997)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Tasini v. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp 804 (1997))

Sotomayor ruled in favor of The New York Times when it was sued by freelance journalists claiming the newspaper did not have the right to include their work in the electronic archival database LexisNexis. Sotomayor's decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and that reversal was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 7-2 vote (Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissenting).

Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc. (1995)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc, 67 F3d 1054 (1995))

Judge Sotomayor's decision to grant a temporary injunction against the Major League Baseball owners on March 31, 1995, ended the 232-day baseball strike of 1994. The injunction prevented the owners from installing replacement players and temporarily reinstated a five-year-old collective bargaining agreement allowing the 1995 season to take place and allowing players and owners to come to a new agreement nearly a year later. Her decision was later upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Dow Jones v. U.S. Department of Justice (1995)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Dow Jones v. U.S. Department of Justice, 880F. Supp. 145 (1995))

In 1995, Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the Wall Street Journal, allowing the newspaper to print a photocopy of the final note written by Clinton White House deputy counsel Vince Foster, who died in 1993. Sotomayor ruled that the public interest in the Foster story outweighed any violation of his family's privacy.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
• Sotomayor confirmation hearing video
• Reaction to Sonia Sotomayor nomination

External links

• Profile by Oyez
• Profile from the Supreme Court Historical Society
• United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Questionnaire filled out by Sotomayor
• Appendix to the Committee on the Judiciary Questionnaire filled out by Sotomayor
• GPO.gov, "Full Transcript of Justice Sotomayor's Senate Judiciary Hearing"
• Opinions involving Sonia Sotomayor from Open Jurist

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by -	Supreme Court of the United States 2009-Present	Succeeded by -
Preceded by -	United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit 1998-2009	Succeeded by -
Preceded by -	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 1992-1998	Succeeded by -

Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama
Nominated	Federal judges nominated by Barack Obama