June 6th Opinions
The Court issued opinions today in the following three argued cases. Lyle has all the details below:
No. 03-1454, Gonzales v. Raich, reversed 6-3, per Justice Stevens. Justice Scalia was the sixth vote, writing a concurrence in the judgment. Justice O’Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by the Chief Justice and by Justice Thomas as to all but Part III. Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissent.
No. 128 Orig., Alaska v. United States. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, upholding the Special Master’s recommendation in favor of the federal government. Justice Scalia concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas.
No. 03-1388, Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. Justice Kennedy wrote the lead opinion, which is an opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A-1, and II-B-2, an opinion for three Justice (AMK, JPS, DS) with respect to Parts II-A-2, II-B-1, II-B-3, and III-B, and opinion for four Justices (adding Justice Thomas) with respect to Part III-A. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment and in Parts I, II-A-1 and II-B-2 of the Kennedy opinion. Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment in part. Justice Scalia wrote a dissent, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice O’Connor and in part by Justice Thomas.
The Raich decision means that Justice Souter was likely assigned to write the majority opinion in Miller-El. That case and Rompilla v. Beard are the only cases argued before the February sitting that remain to be decided.
Remains of the Coonstitution
I have just returned from the Supreme Court, where I snagged a copy of Raich for my employers and read it in the taxi on the way over. Stevens writes for Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, none of whom write separately….
Comment by Crescat Sententia — June 6, 2005 @ 10:58 am
It was Scalia…
…who killed federalism. Hypocrite. He did write a concurring opinion, so it’ll be interesting to see how he wriggled out…
Comment by The Agitator — June 6, 2005 @ 11:09 am
I think they still owe us Orff v US as well — (Feb 23) — unless I can’t find it.
TG responds: Marty was just referring to cases before the February sitting. Several February cases are still outstanding, including particularly Kelo and the Ten Commandments cases.
Comment by Someguy — June 6, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
“before” as in temporally, got it. I was thinking before as in “before the Supreme Court” physically. Was confused. My bad.
TG responds: Don’t be silly. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Comment by Someguy — June 6, 2005 @ 1:48 pm