Decisions: campaign finance limits nullified; five rulings overall
(NOTE: The next decision day will be Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced. Five decisions remain (see below). Presumably, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will announce on Wednesday when the Term will end. The fact that he did not do so Monday indicates that there will be opinions on both Wednesday and at least one other day — Thursday, Friday or Monday.)
UPDATE 11:17 a.m.
The Supreme Court, in a splintered decision on Monday, struck down limits on campaign donations and campaign spending imposed by the state of Vermont. Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced that as the summary of the ruling in three consolidated cases. The vote was 6-3; the Court issued four opinions for the majority and two for the dissent The cases were Randall v. Sorrell (04-1528), Vermont Republican Commiitte v. Sorrell (04-1530) and Sorrell v. Randall (04-1697).
Dividing 5-4, the Court ruled that a state may constitutionally require the death penalty if mitigating and aggravating factors are in equal balance — a decision that upheld Kansas’ capital punishment scheme. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the lead opinion. (Kansas v. Marsh [04-1170].)
In another ruling written by Justice Thomas, the Court ruled that failure to submit a sentencing factor to a jury is not a “structural” error and thus will not always require reversal of a conviction. (Washington v. Recuenco05-83].)
In a fourth decision, the Court ruled 5-4 that federal law does not allow parents who win a case on the education of their disabled child to be re-paid the fees they spent on an educational expert to help make their case. (Arlington School District v. Murphy [05-18].) (Correction: the vote was 6-3.)
In the final ruling of the day, the Court decided that a conviction must be reversed if the accused was deprived, even if in error, of the defense lawyer of choice. Again, the vote was 5-4. (U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez [05-352].)
Here are the cases remaining to be decided:
04-1739 — Beard v. Banks (right of dangerous prison inmates to have access to newspapers, magazines and photographs)
04-10566 (and a companion case) — Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (state court duty to obey World Court ruling on arrested foreign nationals’ access to a consular officer)
05-184 — Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Supreme Court power to decide constitutionality of war-on-terrorism war crimes tribunals, and the merits of that constitutional question)
05-204 (and three companion cases) – League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (validity of Texas congressional redistricting plan)
05-5966 — Clark v. Arizona (right to make an insanity defense to disprove criminal intent).
Arlington School District was 6-3 with Alito writing and Ginsburg concurring separately. Not 5-4.
Comment by valpodogs — June 26, 2006 @ 10:56 am
Scalia’s concurrence in Marsh is a great read. He really takes some of the dissenters to task.
Comment by federalist — June 26, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Will wonders never cease….
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
Scalia went with the “liberal wing”; he must be getting old.
Comment by Daniel — June 26, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Scalia’s concurrence in Marsh mischaracterizes the facts about the innocence research. It’s a great read, much like fiction is.
Comment by johnlex — June 26, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
The Scalia vs. Alito vote should put to rest the “Scalito” name-calling.
I’m very pleased with the result in Gonzales-Lopez. The defendant demonstrated, almost conclusively, that his counsel of choice would have produced a much different outcome. The key government witness was left intact by the attorney he was forced to use, while his attorney of choice destroyed the witness’ credibility in a post-trial deposition. As Justice Scalia pointed out, if the dissent were to have prevailed, then there would be no right granted by the 6th Amendment which was not granted by the Due Process Clause; the 6th Amendment would have effectively been written out of the Constitution.
Comment by PatHMV — June 26, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
The campaign case is another example of Justice Breyer taking some centrist position that underlines he is not the kneejerk liberal some stereotype him as. Two others involved school drug testing and funding of computers etc. to religious schools.
Scalia, et. al. aren’t as kneejerk as people think, but the kneejerking works both ways, which is not suprising, though still worth noting now and again.
Comment by Joe — June 26, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
wow. Scalia’s concurrence in Marsh was about as awesome as Breyer’s dissent in Arlington was embarrassing.
three cheers for common sense, and three cheers for textualism.
Comment by moxfulder1 — June 26, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
It’s about time!
Comment by Rosemary — June 26, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
What about the Texas redisriting case? Thanks
Comment by qaz — June 26, 2006 @ 5:22 pm