The Wall Street Journal Home Page
Article Search
Quotes & Research
 
Features
My Online Journal
Customer Service
Advertiser Links
Featured Advertiser
 

NASDAQ Presents
"QQQ"
Diversify your portfolio.
 
SPLIT DECISIONS
Cases That Have Divided the Supreme Court in the 2007-08 Term

From child pornography to product liability, the cases before the Supreme Court this term illustrate the court's ideological split. In two employment cases, one involving race and the other age, the court took an expansive view of workers' rights. The justices were divided on whether investors could sue third parties in corporate-fraud cases and on how much power courts should have in reviewing arbitration awards. But in court's last full term before President Bush leaves office, the highest stakes on the docket involve the defining legal issue of his administration: the extent of presidential power. In June, the justices handed the White House its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.

Also, a look at decisions that split the justices in the 2006-07 and 2005-06 terms.

  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
D.C. v. Heller - June 26, 2008
The court for the first time declared the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains a specific right to individual gun ownership and rejected Washington, D.C., handgun restrictions, which were the strictest in the nation.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."—Justice Scalia delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined.
"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent, in which Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Davis v. Federal Elections Commission - June 26, 2008
The court invalidated a federal campaign finance law that attempts to blunt the advantage wealthy self-financed candidates have in a congressional election.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"There is, however, no constitutional basis for attacking contribution limits on the ground that they are too high. Congress has no constitutional obligation to limit contributions at all; and if Congress concludes that allowing contributions of a certain amount does not create an undue risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, a candidate who wishes to restrict an opponent’s fundraising cannot argue that the Constitution demands that contributions be regulated more strictly."—Justice Alito delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined.
"If, as I have come to believe, Congress could attempt to reduce the millionaire candidate’s advantage by imposing reasonable limits on all candidates’ expenditures, it follows a fortiori that the eminently reasonable scheme before us today survives constitutional scrutiny." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent in part, in which Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Snohomish County Washington Public Utility District No. 1 - June 26, 2008
Justices asked federal courts and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take another look at the terms of long-term wholesale energy contracts several Western utilities signed during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.(Arguments | Opinion)

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer didn't take part

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Like fraud and duress, unlawful market activity that directly affects contract negotiations eliminates the premise on which the Mobile-Sierra presumption rests: that the contract rates are the product of fair, arms-length negotiations."—Justice Scalia delivering the opinion, in which Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined and Justice Ginsburg joined in part.
"Even if the 'Mobile-Sierra presumption' were not tantamount to a separate standard, nothing in the statute mandates 'differing application' of the statutory standard to rates set by contract." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent, in which Justice Souter joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Exxon Shipping Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Baker - June 25, 2008
The court said punitive damages are allowed in a lawsuit over the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill by a 5-3 vote but ordered lower courts to reduce the $2.5 billion award to no more than $507.5 million.(Arguments | Opinion)

Justice Alito didn't take part

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Under the umbrellas of punishment and its aim of deterrence, degrees of relative blameworthiness are apparent. Reckless conduct is not intentional or malicious, nor is it necessarily callous toward the risk of harming others, as opposed to unheedful of it."—Justice Souter delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined.
"In light of Exxon’s decision to permit a lapsed alcoholic to command a supertanker carrying tens of millions of gallons of crude oil through the treacherous waters of Prince William Sound, thereby endangering all of the individuals who depended upon the sound for their livelihoods, the jury could reasonably have given expression to its 'moral condemnation' of Exxon’s conduct in the form of this award." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer also dissented.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Giles v. California - June 25, 2008
The court says a convicted killer deserves a new trial because jurors heard testimony that should have been excluded. His ex-girlfriend made the statements shortly before he killed her.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"A murderer can and should be punished, without regard to his purpose, after a fair trial. But a legislature may not “punish” a defendant for his evil acts by stripping him of the right to have his guilt in a criminal proceeding determined by a jury, and on the basis of evidence the Constitution deems reliable and admissible."—Justice Scalia delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Souter and Ginsburg joined.
"A constitutional evidentiary requirement that insists upon a showing of purpose (rather than simply intent or probabilistic knowledge) may permit the domestic partner who made the threats, caused the violence, or even murdered the victim to avoid conviction for earlier crimes by taking advantage of later ones." —Justice Breyer writing in dissent, in which Justices Stevens and Kennedy joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Kennedy v. Louisiana - June 25, 2008
The court said Louisiana can't put a man to death for raping his young daughter.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Difficulties in administering the penalty to ensure against its arbitrary and capricious application require adherence to a rule reserving its use, at this stage of evolving standards and in cases of crimes against individuals, for crimes that take the life of the victim."—Justice Kennedy delivering the opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
"With respect to the question of moral depravity, is it really true that every person who is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death is more morally depraved than every child rapist?" —Justice Alito writing in dissent, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Plains Commerce v. Long - June 25, 2008
The court restricted the ability of Indian courts to hear lawsuits involving non-tribal members.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The sovereign authority of Indian tribes is limited in ways state and federal authority is not. ... That bedrock principle does not vary depending on the desirability of a particular regulation."—Chief Justice Roberts delivering the opinion, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined.
"Under the procedural rules applicable in Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Courts, as under the Federal Rules, demand for one form of relief does not confine a trial court’s remedial authority." —Justice Ginsburg writing in dissent, in which Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Greenlaw v. U.S. - June 23, 2008
The court threw out a ruling in which a federal appeals court, without being asked to do so, added 15 years to a convicted man's prison sentence.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"In remanded cases, the Government relates, trial courts have imposed a sentence on the remaining counts longer than the sentence originally imposed on those particular counts, but yielding an aggregate sentence no longer than the aggregate sentence initially imposed. ... Thus the defendant ultimately may gain nothing from his limited success on appeal, but he will also lose nothing, as he will serve no more time than the trial court originally ordered."—Justice Ginsburg delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
"If a sentencing court may rely on new circumstances to justify a longer sentence on remand, why cannot one of the new circumstances be the court’s discovery (by dint of appellate review) that its first sentence was based on an error of law?" —Justice Alito writing in dissent, in which Justice Stevens joined and Justice Breyer joined as to parts I, II and III.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Rothgery v. Gillespie County - June 23, 2008
Justices say an indigent defendant's right to a lawyer begins when he is brought before a judge, informed why he has been arrested and jailed.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"We merely reaffirm what we have held before and what an overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions understand in practice: a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel."—Justice Souter delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito joined.
"Neither petitioner nor the Court identifies any way in which petitioner’s ability to receive a fair trial was undermined by the absence of counsel during the period between his initial appearance and his indictment. Nothing during that period exposed petitioner to the risk that he would be convicted as the result of ignorance of his rights." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Sprint and AT&T v. APCC - June 23, 2008
The court, in a 5-4 opinion, said third-party collection companies can recover long-distance telephone fees on behalf of payphone companies that have disputed charges owed by AT&T Inc. and a unit of Sprint Nextel Corp.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The question before us is whether an assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. Because history and precedent make clear that such an assignee has long been permitted to bring suit, we conclude that the assignee does have standing."—Justice Breyer delivering the opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg joined.
"The majority reaches this conclusion ... by reference to a historical tradition that is, at best, equivocal. That history does not contradict what common sense should tell us: There is a legal difference between something and nothing. Respondents have nothing to gain from their lawsuit. Under settled principles of standing, that fact requires dismissal of their complaint." —Chief Justice Roberts writing in dissent, in which Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer - June 19, 2008
The court ruled that a state may not prohibit employers from using state money to play a role in union organizing drives.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The mere fact that Congress has imposed targeted federal restrictions on union-related advocacy in certain limited contexts does not invite the States to override federal labor policy in other settings."—Justice Stevens delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas and Alito joined.
"I do not believe that we can, and I would not, decide this question until the lower courts have had an opportunity to consider and rule upon the compliance-related questions." —Justice Breyer writing in dissent, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Indiana v. Edwards - June 19, 2008
The court ruled that criminal defendants with a history of mental illness do not always have the right to represent themselves, even though they have been judged competent to stand trial.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"We consequently conclude that the Constitution permits judges to take realistic account of the particular defendant’s mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so."—Justice Breyer delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito joined.
"In singling out mentally ill defendants for this treatment, the Court’s opinion does not even have the questionable virtue of being politically correct. At a time when all society is trying to mainstream the mentally impaired, the Court permits them to be deprived of a basic constitutional right — for their own good." —Justice Scalia writing in dissent, in which Justice Thomas joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC - June 19, 2008
The court ruled that governments can deny disability benefits to older workers who qualify for regular retirement benefits.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"We are dealing today with the quite special case of differential treatment based on pension status, where pension status—with the explicit blessing of the ADEA—itself turns, in part, on age. Further, the rule we adopt today for dealing with this sort of case is clear: Where an employer adopts a pension plan that includes age as a factor, and that employer then treats employees differently based on pension status, a plaintiff, to state a disparate treatment claim under the ADEA, must adduce sufficient evidence to show that the differential treatment was 'actually motivated' by age, not pension status."—Justice Breyer delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Souter and Thomas joined.
"Kentucky’s disability retirement plan violates the ADEA, an Act intended to promote the interests of older Americans. Yet it is no small irony that it does so, at least in part, because the Commonwealth’s normal retirement plan treats older workers in a particularly generous fashion." —Justice Kennedy writing in dissent, in which Justices Scalia, Ginsburg and Alito joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - June 19, 2008
The justices said employers defending themselves in certain age discrimination cases must provide convincing evidence that factors other than age were the basis for their decisions involving a worker.(Arguments | Opinion)

Justice Breyer didn't take part

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"As the outcome for the employer in City of Jackson shows, 'it is not surprising that certain employment criteria that are routinely used may be reasonable despite their adverse impact on older workers as a group.'"—Justice Souter delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Alito joined.
"Because administration of the ADEA has been placed in the hands of the [Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission, and because the agency’s positions on the questions before us are unquestionably reasonable (as the Court’s opinion ably shows), I defer to the agency’s views." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn - June 19, 2008
The justices said judges should consider whether insurance companies administering employee benefit plans have a conflict of interest when benefits disputes end up in court.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Benefits decisions arise in too many contexts, concern too many circumstances, and can relate in too many different ways to conflicts—which themselves vary in kind and in degree of seriousness—for us to come up with a one-size-fits-all procedural system that is likely to promote fair and accurate review."—Justice Breyer delivering the opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito joined and Chief Justice Roberts joined in part.
"In the final analysis, the Court seems to advance a gestalt reasonableness standard (a 'combination-of-factors method of review,' the opinion calls it, ante, at 11), by which a reviewing court, mindful of being deferential, should nonetheless consider all the circumstances, weigh them as it thinks best, then divine whether a fiduciary's discretionary decision should be overturned." —Justice Scalia writing in dissent, in which Justice Thomas Joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly - June 16, 2008
The court ruled that companies can't avoid the payment of transfer taxes on asset transfers made before a court confirms a bankruptcy plan.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Section 1146(a) affords a stamp-tax exemption only to transfers made pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan that has been confirmed. Because Piccadilly transferred its assets before its Chapter 11 plan was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, it may not rely on §1146(a) to avoid Florida’s stamp taxes." —Justice Thomas delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter Ginsburg and Alito joined.
"We certainly should consider Congress' view of the policy for the statute it created, and that view inheres in the statute's purpose. ... It is the majority's failure to work with this important tool of statutory interpretation that has led it to construe the present statute in a way that, in my view, runs contrary to what Congress would have hoped for and expected." —Justice Breyer writing in dissent, in which Justice Stevens joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Dada v. Mukasey - June 16, 2008
The court ruled that someone who is in the U.S. illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the U.S.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Although a statute or regulation might be adopted to resolve the dilemma in a different manner, as matters now stand the appropriate way to reconcile the voluntary departure and motion to reopen provisions is to allow analien to withdraw the request for voluntary departurebefore expiration of the departure period."—Justice Kennedy delivering the opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
"Neither the BIA nor the Fifth Circuit addressed petitioner’s motion to withdraw ... and therefore the ground for the Board’s decision is unclear. ... If the BIA rejected the withdrawal request on the ground that it lacked the statutory authority to permit it, the Board erred. Because the ground for the BIA's decision is uncertain, I would vacate and remand."—Justice Scalia writing in dissent, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Boumediene v. Bush - June 12, 2008
The court ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law." —Justice Kennedy delivering the opinion. Justice Souter filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
"Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s operation." —Chief Justice John Roberts writing in dissent. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Irizarry v. U.S. - June 12, 2008
The justices ruled that judges don't have to notify defendants and prosecutors when contemplating a prison term outside the range called for in federal sentencing guidelines. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"We have confidence in the ability of district judges and counsel -- especially in light of Rule 32’s other procedural protections -- to make sure that all relevant matters relating to a sentencing decision have been considered before the final sentencing determination is made." —Justice Stevens delivering the opinion. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
"If notice still produced some burdens and delay, fairness justifies notice regardless. Indeed, the Government and the defendant here -- the parties most directly affected by sentencing -- both urge the Court to find a notice requirement." —Justice Breyer writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel - June 12, 2008
In a 7-2 decision, the justices said U.S. courts were wrong to proceed with a lawsuit that a federal judge in Hawaii decided in the victims' favor.(Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The Court of Appeals gave insufficient weight to the foreign sovereign status of the Republic and the Commission, and that the court further erred in reaching and discounting the merits of their claims." —Justice Kennedy delivering the opinion. Justice Souter joined as to all but Parts IV–B and V, and in which Justice Stevens joined as to Part II. Justices Stevens and Souter also filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.
"The District Court and the Ninth Circuit erred by concluding that the New York statute of limitations provides a virtually insuperable obstacle to petitioners’ recovery of the Arelma, S. A., assets, and I therefore agree that this Court should reverse. I would not, however, give near-dispositive effect to the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and the Philippine Presidential Commission on Good Governance’s (Commission) status as sovereign entities, as the Court does in ordering outright dismissal of the case." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture - June 9, 2008
In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled against a woman who said her job at the Oregon Department of Agriculture was eliminated because she complained about a colleague who harassed her. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
Individual victims of discrimination in many instances can assert claims, but "we have often recognized that government has significantly greater leeway in its dealings with citizen employees than it does when it brings its sovereign power to bear on citizens at large." —Chief Justice Roberts delivering the opinion.
"There is no compelling reason to carve arbitrary public-employment decisions out of the well-established category of equal protection violations when the familiar rational review standard can sufficiently limit these claims to only wholly unjustified employment actions." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
U.S. v. Santos - June 2, 2008
In a 5-4 ruling, the court said that money laundering refers to profits of an illegal operation, not gross receipts. The court's interpretation is a narrow one opposed by law enforcement agencies. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"According to the Government, if we do not read 'proceeds' to mean 'receipts,' we will disserve the purpose of the federal money-laundering statute, which is, the Government says, to penalize criminals who conceal or promote their illegal activities." —Justice Scalia delivering the opinion. Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion.
"Concluding that 'proceeds' means 'profits,' the plurality opinion's interpretation would frustrate Congress's intent and maim a statute that was enacted as an important defense against organized criminal enterprises." —Justice Alito writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries - May 27, 2008
The court, by a 7-2 vote, said a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 covers claims of retaliation that follow complaints about discrimination on the basis of race. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The idea that a provision of the 1866 law, known as section 1981, "encompasses retaliation claims is indeed well embedded in the law. Stare decisis considerations strongly support the Court’s adherence to that view. Such considerations impose a considerable burden on those who would seek a different interpretation that would necessarily unsettle many Court precedents." —Justice Breyer delivering the opinion.
"Stare decisis, designed to be a principle of stability and repose, would become a vehicle of change whereby an error in one area metastasizes into others, thereby distorting the law. Two wrongs do not make a right, and an aesthetic preference for symmetry should not prevent us from recognizing the true meaning of an Act of Congress." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent, in which Justice Scalia joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Gomez-Perez v. Potter, Postmaster General - May 27, 2008
In a 6-3 ruling, the high court held that the part of the major anti-age bias law covering federal employees also protects them from retaliation after complaining about discrimination. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The decision of the Court of Appeals, which respondent defends, perceived a 'clear difference between a cause of action for discrimination and a cause of action for retaliation.'" —Justice Alito delivering the opinion.
"Protection against discrimination may include protection against retaliation for complaining about discrimination, but that is not always the case. The separate treatment of each in the private-sector provision of the ADEA makes that clear." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent. Chief Justice Roberts also filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined as to all but Part I.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Riley v. Kennedy - May 27, 2008
The court said Alabama Gov. Bob Riley didn't need federal government approval to fill a vacancy on the Mobile County Commission with a fellow Republican appointee. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The state's reversion to its prior practice, in accord with the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, did not rank as a 'change' requiring preclearance." [Federal approval before it could take effect.] —Justice Ginsburg delivering the opinion.
"This case calls for nothing more than a straight forward application of our precedent; that precedent makes clear that the special election procedure was the relevant baseline and that gubernatorial appointment therefore represents a change that must be precleared." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
U.S. v. Williams - May 19, 2008
Justices upheld criminal penalties for promoting child pornography. The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child porn. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens. Both the State and Federal Governments have sought to suppress it for many years, only to find it proliferating through the new medium of the Internet. This Court held unconstitutional Congress’s previous attempt to meet this new threat, and Congress responded with a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the First Amendment problems we identified." —Justice Scalia delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer and Alito joined. Justice Stevens also filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined.
"I believe that maintaining the First Amendment protection of expression we have previously held to cover fake child pornography requires a limit to the law’s criminalization of pandering proposals." —Justice Souter writing in dissent, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
U.S. v. Rodriquez - May 19, 2008
The high court said a man with a long criminal record deserves a lengthy prison term, under a federal law aimed at keeping repeat offenders behind bars longer. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The top sentence in a guidelines range is generally not really the 'maximum term...prescribed by law' for the 'offense' because guidelines systems typically allow a sentencing judge to impose a sentence that exceeds the top of the guidelines range under appropriate circumstances." —Justice Alito delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer joined.
"It all turns on the meaning of the word 'offense,' to which the 'maximum term' is tied. One can naturally read 'an offense' at a general level as synonymous with 'a crime,' which would tend to rule out reference to maximums adjusted for other facts; we do not usually speak of a crime of 'burglary while having a criminal record and while out on bail.'" —Justice Souter writing in dissent, in which Justices Stevens and Ginsburg joined.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
U.S. v. Ressam - May 19, 2008
The court ruled against an Algerian convicted of conspiring to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport during the millenium holiday travel rush. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The most natural reading of the relevant statutory text provides a sufficient basis for reversal. That text reads: Whoever—(1) uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or (2) carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States." —Justice Stevens delivering the opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito joined. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined as to Part I. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Scalia joined.
"My problem with the Court’s interpretation is that it would permit conviction of any individual who legally carries explosives at the time that he engages in a totally unrelated felony." —Justice Breyer writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Gonzalez v. U.S. - May 12, 2008
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal magistrate can preside over jury selection in criminal cases, as long as the attorney for a defendant explicitly permits it. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"These factors support our determination that consent of counsel suffices to allow a magistrate judge to supervise voir dire. This is not a case where the magistrate judge is asked to preside or make determinations after the trial has commenced and it is arguably difficult or disruptive for a district judge to review any objections that might have been made to the magistrate judge’s rulings." —Justice Kennedy delivering the opinion, with which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito joined. Justice Scalia agreed with the outcome but wrote separately.
"Accordingly, whatever their virtues, magistrate judges are no substitute for Article III judges [U.S. District Court judges] in the eyes of the Constitution." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board - April 28, 2008
The court ruled that state requirements that voters show photo identification are not a violation of their constitutional rights, in an Indiana case that validated GOP-inspired voter ID laws. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"If a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. ... The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'"—Justice Stevens writing the main opinion, with which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito agreed with the outcome but wrote separately.
"Indiana's 'Voter ID Law' threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State's citizens and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting. The statute is unconstitutional.'" —Justice Souter writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Baze v. Rees - April 16, 2008
The Supreme Court decided that the lethal-injection procedures facing two Kentucky inmates would not pose an unconstitutional level of risk for pain when they are put to death. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm' that qualifies as cruel and unusual."—Chief Justice Roberts writing the main opinion, with which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined.
"Kentucky’s protocol lacks basic safeguards used by other States to confirm that an inmate is unconscious before injection of the second and third drugs. I would vacate and remand with instructions to consider whether Kentucky’s omission of those safeguards poses an untoward, readily avoidable risk of inflicting severe and unnecessary pain." —Justice Ginsburg writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Begay v. U.S - April 16, 2008
The Supreme Court ruled that convictions for drunken driving don't count as violent felonies for enhancing prison sentences. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"We hold only that, for purposes of the particular statutory provision before us, a prior record of DUI, a strict liability crime, differs from a prior record of violent and aggressive crimes committed inten­tionally such as arson, burglary, extortion, or crimes in­volving the use of explosives. The latter are associated with a likelihood of future violent, aggressive, and pur­poseful 'armed career criminal' behavior in a way that the former are not."—Justice Breyer writing for the majority. Justice Scalia agreed with the outcome but wrote separately.
"This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of the statute, which simply does not provide that an offense must be 'purposeful,' 'violent,' or 'aggressive' in order to fall within the residual clause. Rather, after listing bur­glary, arson, extortion, and explosives offenses, the statute provides (in the residual clause) that an offense qualifies if it 'otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.'" —Justice Alito writing in dissent, joined by Justices Souter and Thomas. .
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer*
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
New Jersey v. Delaware - March 31, 2008
The Supreme Court, in settling a border dispute between Delaware and New Jersey, ruled Delaware can deny BP the ability to build a $500 million liquid natural gas facility off the shore of New Jersey. (Arguments | Opinion)

*Breyer didn't take part

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Consistent with the scope of its retained police power to regulate certain riparian uses, it was within Delaware’s authority to prohibit construction of the facility within its domain."—Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority.
"The exception (whatever it means) has absolutely no basis in prior law, which regards as beyond the 'ordinary and usual' (and hence beyond the legitimate) only that wharfing out which interferes with navigation." —Justice Scalia writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Medellin v. Texas - March 25, 2008
The Supreme Court ruled Texas doesn't have to give a new hearing to a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, deciding a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The government has not identified a single instance in which the president has attempted (or Congress has acquiesced in) a presidential directive issued to state courts, much less one that reaches deep into the heart of the State’s police powers and compels state courts to reopen final criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws."—Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority.
"In reaching a contrary conclusion, the court has failed to take proper account ofthat precedent and, as a result, the nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the contrary. For the reasons set forth, I respectfully dissent." —Justice Breyer writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Hall Street Associates v. Mattel - March 25, 2008
The Supreme Court has limited the role of the courts in reviewing arbitration awards under federal law. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Although we agree with the Ninth Circuit that the Federal Arbitration Act confines its expedited judicial review to the grounds [cited], we vacate the judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion."—Justice Souter writing for the majority.
"Accordingly, while I agree that the judgment of the court of appeals must be set aside, and that there may be additional avenues available for judicial enforcement of parties’ fairly negotiated review provisions, I respectfully dissent from the court’s interpretation of the FAA, and would direct the court of appeals to affirm the judgment of the district court enforcing the arbitrator's final award." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Snyder v. Louisiana - March 19, 2008
The Supreme Court threw out the death sentence in a Louisiana murder case, citing racial prejudice in the actions of a prosecutor who kept blacks off the jury. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"When all of these considerations are taken into account, the prosecutor’s second proffered justification for striking Mr. Brooks is suspicious.The implausibility of this explanation is reinforced by the prosecutor’s acceptance of white jurors who disclosed conflicting obligations that appear to have been at least asserious as Mr. Brooks’."—Justice Alito writing for the majority.
"None of the evidence in the record as to jurors Jeffrey Brooks and Elaine Scott demonstrates that the trial court clearly erred in finding they were not stricken on the basis of race.... We have no business overturning a conviction, years after the fact and after extensive intervening litigation, based on arguments not presented to the courts below." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent - March 3, 2008
The court deadlocked in a Michigan lawsuit against Pfizer Inc.'s Warner-Lambert unit, an outcome that allows a product-liability case over Rezulin to proceed. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."
Chief Justice Roberts didn't take part in the consideration or decision of this case.

  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki et al. - Feb. 27, 2008
The court ruled that employees who claim job discrimination should not suffer because of mistakes made by the federal agency charged with investigating their allegations, allowing an age discrimination lawsuit to proceed against FedEx. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Documents filed by an employee with the EEOC should be construed, to the extent consistent with permissible rules of interpretation, to protect the employee’s rights and statutory remedies."—Justice Kennedy writing for the majority.
"The Court’s failure to apply a clear and sensible rule renders its decision of little use in future cases to complainants, employers, or the agency." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Riegel v. Medtronic Inc. - Feb. 20, 2008
The court ruled federal medical-device regulations prevent patients from bringing state product-liability lawsuits unless a medical-device company violated Food and Drug Administration regulations. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"The District Court in this case recognized that parallel claims would not be pre-empted... but it interpreted the claims here to assert that Medtronic's device violated state tort law notwithstanding compliance with the relevant federal requirements."—Justice Scalia writing for the majority.
"The constriction of state authority ordered today was not mandated by Congress and is at odds with the [Medical Device Amendments of 1976 ]'s central purpose: to protect consumer safety." —Justice Ginsburg writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Danforth v. Minnesota - Feb. 20, 2008
Justices decided that state courts may apply its rulings to old cases, opening the way for an imprisoned child sex abuser in Minnesota to challenge his conviction. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
A state "should be equally free to give its citizens the benefit of our rule in any fashion that does not offend federal law."—Justice Stevens writing for the majority.
"Lurking behind today's decision is of course the question of just how free state courts are to define the retroactivity of our decisions interpreting the Federal Constitution. I do not see any basis in the majority’s logic for concluding that States are free to hold our decisions retroactive when we have held they are not, but not free to hold that they are not when we have held they are." —Justice Roberts writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Preston v. Ferrer - Feb. 20, 2008
The court ruled against Alex E. Ferrer, the star of the syndicated television show "Judge Alex," saying that an arbitrator must decide a fee dispute with an attorney who is claiming 12% of "Judge Alex's" earnings. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"When parties agree to arbitrate all questions arising under a contract, the [Federal Arbitration Act] supersedes state laws lodging primary jurisdiction in another forum, whether judicial or administrative."—Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority.
"In state-court proceedings, the FAA cannot displace a state law that delays arbitration until administrative proceedings are completed." —Justice Thomas writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons - Jan. 22, 2008
The court held that a Muslim inmate cannot sue the government over the disappearance of the prisoner's copies of the Quran and a prayer rug (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
The law "forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by ‘any,’ not just ’some,’ law enforcement officers."—Justice Thomas writing for the majority.
"The seizure of property by an officer raises serious concerns for the liberty of our people and the [Federal Tort Claims] Act should not be read to permit appropriation of property without a remedy in tort by language so obscure and indirect." —Justice Kennedy writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer*
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc. - Jan. 15, 2008
The court ruled that investors can't sue third parties in corporate-fraud cases unless they relied on them when making investment decisions. (Arguments | Opinion)

*Breyer didn't take part

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Congress amended the securities laws to provide for limited coverage of aidersand abettors. Aiding and abetting liability is authorized in actions brought by the SEC but not by private parties."—Justice Kennedy writing for the majority.
"While I recognize that the Central Bank opinion provides a precedent for judicial policymaking decisions in this area of the law, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s continuing campaign to render the private cause of action under §10(b) toothless." —Justice Stevens writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
John R. v. U.S. - Jan. 8, 2008
The court imposed a six-year deadline for suing the federal government in property disputes. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"To overturn a decision settling one such matter simply because we might believe that decision is no longer 'right' would inevitably reflect a willingness to reconsider others. And that willingness could itself threaten to substitute disruption, confusion, and uncertainty for necessary legal stability. We have not found here any factors that might overcome these considerations."—Justice Breyer writing for the majority.
"I would reverse the judgment rendered by the Federal Circuit majority. In accord with dissenting Judge Newman, I would hold that the Court of Appeals had no war-rant to declare the petitioner’s action time barred."—Justice Ginsburg writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Kimbrough v. U.S. - Dec. 10, 2007
The justices said judges may impose shorter prison terms for crack cocaine crimes, enhancing discretion to reduce the disparity between sentencing rules for crack and cocaine powder. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"Giving due respect to the District Court's reasoned appraisal, a reviewing court could not rationally conclude that the 4.5-year sentence reduction [the appellant] received qualified as an abuse of discretion."—Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority.
"We are asked here to determine whether, under the new advisory Guidelines regime, district courts may impose sentences based in part on their disagreement with a categorical policy judgment ... . But ... Congress, by making the Guidelines mandatory, quite clearly intended to bind district courts to the Sentencing Commission's categorical policy judgments."—Justice Thomas writing in dissent.
  =  MAJORITY Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
John Paul
Stevens
David H.
Souter
Stephen G.
Breyer
Anthony M.
Kennedy
John G.
Roberts, Jr.
Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.
Antonin
Scalia
Clarence
Thomas
Gall v. U.S. - Dec. 10, 2007
The court ruled in favor of judicial discretion to impose more lenient sentences than federal guidelines recommend in cases other than those involving crack cocaine. (Arguments | Opinion)

Ginsberg Stevens Souter Breyer Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas
toppullout
"It is not for the Court of Appeals to decide de novo whether the justification for a variance is sufficient or the sentence reasonable. On abuse-of-discretion review, the Court of Appeals should have given due deference to the District Court's reasoned and reasonable decision that ... factors, on the whole, justified the sentence."—Justice Stevens writing for the majority.
"The fundamental question in this case is whether ... a district court must give the policy decisions that are embodied in the Sentencing Guidelines at least some significant weight in making a sentencing decision. I would answer that question in the affirmative."—Justice Alito writing in dissent.


Write to the Online Journal's editors at newseditors@wsj.com

 
Return To Top
      E-Mail Setup   Customer Service: |
     
DowJones