2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia

Concurrence
width=25px
Concurrence/dissent
white-space: nowrap |Total =
22
-
colspan=2 | Bench opinions = 21
colspan=2 | Opinions relating to orders = 1
colspan=2 | In-chambers opinions = 0
-
white-space: nowrap colspan=2 valign=top | Unanimous decisions: 2
colspan=2 valign=top | Most joined by: Thomas (11)
colspan=2 valign=top | Least joined by: O'Connor (2) [Justice O'Connor's low frequency of joining Scalia's opinions this term is because she 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.]
valign=top | Scalia joined O'Connor's unanimous opinion, and filed a separate concurrence.
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Unanimous
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Roberts, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Controlled Substances Act
width=20% valign=top | Roberts, Thomas
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Scalia filed one of two dissents from the 6-3 majority by Justice Kennedy.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Thomas dissented.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Civil rights
width=20% valign=top | Unanimous
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | 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.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (in part)
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Scalia filed one of three dissents from Souter's 5-3 decision.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Alito
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Scalia concurred in the Court's denial of certiorari.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Habeas corpus: Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
width=20% valign=top | Thomas, Breyer
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | 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."
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Rights of the accused
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | 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.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (in part)
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Clean Water Act
width=20% valign=top | Roberts, Thomas, Alito
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Thomas
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Scalia filed one of two dissents from this "per curiam" decision.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI, right to counsel
width=20% valign=top | Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Death penalty: U.S. Const. amend. VIII, balance of mitigating and aggravating sentencing factors
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Scalia concurred in Thomas' opinion.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Legislative redistricting
width=20% valign=top | Thomas; Roberts, Alito (in part)
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Scalia concurred in the fractured judgment in part, and dissented in part.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Thomas, Alito
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Scalia also joined Thomas' dissent, and Alito's dissent in part.

Notes