2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia

The table below lists all opinions filed by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia during the 2005 term of the Supreme Court of the United States, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006. This was the twentieth term of Scalia's tenure on the Court.
Antonin Scalia 2005 term statistics
9
 Majority or Plurality
7
 Concurrence
0
 Other
5
 Dissent
1
 Concurrence/dissent Total = 22
Bench opinions = 21 Opinions relating to orders = 1 In-chambers opinions = 0
Unanimous decisions: 2 Most joined by: Thomas (11) Least joined by: O'Connor (2)[1]
Case Issue Joined by


 Lockhart v. United States
546 U.S. 142 (2005)
 Debt Collection Act of 1982  • Social Security  • student loan debt
Scalia joined O'Connor's unanimous opinion, and filed a separate concurrence.


 United States v. Georgia
546 U.S. 151 (2006)
 Unanimous


 Brown v. Sanders
546 U.S. 212 (2006)
 Roberts, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas


 Gonzales v. Oregon
546 U.S. 243 (2006)
 Controlled Substances Act Roberts, Thomas
Scalia filed one of two dissents from the 6-3 majority by Justice Kennedy.


 Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
546 U.S. 440 (2006)
 Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Thomas dissented.


 Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald
546 U.S. 470 (2006)
 Civil rights Unanimous
Scalia's opinion was unanimous as to the eight justices participating, in ruling that the Civil Rights Act's protection of the right to make contracts free from racial discrimination did not extend to agents of the contractors, only those who would have enforceable rights under the contracts.


 Oregon v. Guzek
546 U.S. 517 (2006)


United States v. Grubbs
547 U.S. 90 (2006)
 Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (in part)


 Georgia v. Randolph
547 U.S. 103 (2006)
Scalia filed one of three dissents from Souter's 5-3 decision.


 Day v. McDonough
547 U.S. 198 (2006)
 Habeas corpus: Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Thomas, Breyer
Scalia filed one of two dissents from Ginsburg's 5-4 decision, objecting that the Court's affirmance of a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely disregarded the clear provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which required the forfeiture of affirmative defenses when they are not raised. Scalia argued that if there was truly no "dispositive difference" as the Court said between a court allowing the State to amend its answer to include the limitations argument and dismissing sua sponte, "the natural conclusion would be that there is no compelling reason to disregard the Civil Rules. Legislatively enacted rules are surely entitled to more respect than this apparent presumption that, when nothing substantial hangs on the point, they do not apply as written." At a minimum, Scalia believed it "a nontrivial value in itself" to "observe[] the formalities of our adversary system" by requiring the State to amend its own pleading. Scalia also observed that in contrast to the "novel regime" adopted by the majority, there is already a well-developed body of law regarding whether a party should have leave to amend a pleading. "Ockham is offended by today's decision, even if no one else is."


 Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
547 U.S. 451 (2006)


Zedner v. United States
547 U.S. 489 (2006)
 Rights of the accused
Scalia joined Alito's unanimous decision ruling that a criminal defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, except as to the part addressing the Act's legislative history. Scalia filed a separate concurrence to restate his objections to that method of statutory interpretation.


 Hudson v. Michigan
547 U.S. 586 (2006)
 Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (in part)


 Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust
547 U.S. 633 (2006)


Rapanos v. United States
547 U.S. 715 (2006)
 Clean Water Act Roberts, Thomas, Alito


 Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006)
 Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.


 Youngblood v. West Virginia
547 U.S. 867 (2006)
 Thomas
Scalia filed one of two dissents from this per curiam decision.


 Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust v. Kehoe
547 U.S. 1051 (2006)
 Alito
Scalia concurred in the Court's denial of certiorari.


 United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
548 U.S. 140 (2006)
 Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI, right to counsel Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer


 Kansas v. Marsh
548 U.S. 163 (2006)
 Death penalty: U.S. Const. amend. VIII, balance of mitigating and aggravating sentencing factors
Scalia concurred in Thomas' opinion.


 League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
548 U.S. 399 (2006)
 Legislative redistricting Thomas; Roberts, Alito (in part)
Scalia concurred in the fractured judgment in part, and dissented in part.


 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
548 U.S. 557 (2006)
 Thomas, Alito
Scalia also joined Thomas' dissent, and Alito's dissent in part.

Notes

  1. ↑ Justice O'Connor retired January 31, 2006; of the justices who participated in the entire term, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined the fewest of Scalia's opinions, with six each.

References


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 9/8/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.