| Case |
Issue |
Joined by |
|
|
Lockhart v. United States
546 U.S. 142 (2005) |
|
|
|
| Scalia joined O'Connor's unanimous opinion, and filed a separate concurrence. |
|
|
|
Unanimous |
|
|
|
Brown v. Sanders
546 U.S. 212 (2006) |
|
|
Roberts, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |
|
|
|
Controlled Substances Act |
Roberts, Thomas |
| Scalia filed one of two dissents from the 6-3 majority by Justice Kennedy. |
|
|
|
Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Thomas dissented. |
|
|
Civil rights |
Unanimous |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (in part) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Scalia filed one of three dissents from Souter's 5-3 decision. |
|
|
Habeas corpus: Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act |
Thomas, Breyer |
| 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." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rights of the accused |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (in part) |
|
|
|
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust
547 U.S. 633 (2006) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clean Water Act |
Roberts, Thomas, Alito |
|
|
|
|
Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito |
| Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part. |
|
|
|
Thomas |
| Scalia filed one of two dissents from this per curiam decision. |
|
|
Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust v. Kehoe
547 U.S. 1051 (2006) |
|
|
Alito |
| Scalia concurred in the Court's denial of certiorari. |
|
|
Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI, right to counsel |
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
|
|
|
Death penalty: U.S. Const. amend. VIII, balance of mitigating and aggravating sentencing factors |
|
| Scalia concurred in Thomas' opinion. |
|
|
Legislative redistricting |
Thomas; Roberts, Alito (in part) |
| Scalia concurred in the fractured judgment in part, and dissented in part. |
|
|
|
Thomas, Alito |
| Scalia also joined Thomas' dissent, and Alito's dissent in part. |