Scott v. Arnold

Issues: (1) Whether, when a justice contributes the necessary fifth vote to a majority opinion but also writes a concurrence interpreting that opinion, lower courts should disregard the concurrence and rely exclusively on the majority opinion to discern the holding in the case (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and sometimes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit have held), or should grant the concurrence precedential weight (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 5th Circuits, and sometimes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, have held), or should lower courts grant the concurrence precedential weight only if it is “narrower” than the majority opinion, per the rule in Marks v. United States; and (2) whether, for purposes of applying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonough Power Equipment Inc. v. Greenwood—when read in light of the concurrence by Justice Harry Blackmun, who also provided the fifth vote for the majority opinion—“clearly establish[ed]” that a defendant must be granted a new trial when a juror’s dishonest voir dire responses concealed information that would have given the defendant a valid basis to challenge that juror for implied bias.