The Supreme Court issued a rare public statement Friday after two Justices got into an unusually explosive argument.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito had a terse exchange with his colleague, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, following the release of a highly anticipated immigration decision - a rare win for Donald Trump - on Thursday.

The exchange came after Alito delivered the majority opinion in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, which granted Trump a key 6-3 victory allowing federal immigration officers to turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border.  

Sotomayor took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench. The practice, while somewhat uncommon, is certainly not unheard of - and justices are made aware of such plans beforehand. 

This was the case when Sotomayor, who was appointed by Barack Obama, read aloud her sharply worded, 35-page dissent during Thursday's release of opinions. 

But her 10-minute diatribe appeared to catch Alito off guard.

'There’s much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read,' Alito said tersely. 

Seeking to calm the waters more than 24 hours after his remarks made national news, the Court was forced to issue a statement, calling it a 'misunderstanding.'

It's now fueling speculation about rising underlying tensions among the justices.

The Supreme Court on Friday said in a statement that the incident in question was a 'misunderstanding.' 

'Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench,' a spokesperson for the high court told CNN. 

'It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part,' they added.

The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to the Daily Mail's request for comment on the back-and-forth between Alito and Sotomayor.

Justices ruled along ideological lines that migrants seeking refuge do not ‘arrive’ in the country by ‘attempting, and failing, to step foot’ in the United States - clearing the way for the administration to restart its so-called 'turn back' policy. Alito read the majority opinion for the court. 

In writing the majority opinion, Alito said the case ‘presents a straightforward question’: whether someone is considered having ‘arrived’ to the US while still at the US-Mexico border, or when they are physically present in the United States. 

The majority of justices ruled that they must be physically present in the United States. 

Sotomayor and the court's other liberal justices sharply disagreed. 

‘The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having US immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil,’ Sotomayor said in her dissent.

‘They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country,' Sotomayor continued. 

'Even if the port of entry has ample capacity to inspect that person, including an available asylum officer trained to process asylum applications. Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.’ 

It's not the first time the Supreme Court justices have made headlines for breaking, even slightly, with a time-honored sense of decorum. 

Sotomayor issued an apology earlier this year for what she described as 'hurtful' public comments about her colleague, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

'At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate,' Sotomayor said in a statement earlier this year. 

'I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.'