The Supreme Court issued five decisions today — Salinas v. Texas, FTC v. Actavis, Inc., Alleyne v. United States, Maracich v. Spears, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council — but we’re still waiting for Fisher (and Shelby County and the same-sex marriage cases). Today still produced some interesting rulings, and some interesting line-ups as Justices Scalia and Thomas each tried their hands as crossover sensations.
In Alleyne v. United States, concerning whether factors that increase mandatory minimum sentences are “elements” of a crime that must be submitted to a jury, Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and authored an opinion that was joined in part by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Sotomayor also concurred separately (joined by Ginsburg and Kagan), and Justice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring-in-part and concurring-in-the-judgment. The Chief Justice dissented, joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy, and Justice Alito dissented separately. What’s particularly interesting about the line-up here is that the Court did not split along the formalist-pragmatist lines we’ve come to expect in Apprendi cases, as Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer played against type.
In Maracich v. Spears, a case concerning whether attorneys may use state motorist records to solicit clients under the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, Justices Scalia and Breyer again switched roles, as Justice Breyer joined the other conservatives in signing on to Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, and Justice Scalia joined the remaining liberals in dissent.
FTC v. Actavis, a case about the antitrust implications of reverse settlement agreements, produced a more traditional split, as Justice Breyer wrote for the Court, joined by Justice Kennedy and the remaining liberals, while the conservatives (minus a recused Alito) dissented.
Salinas v. Texas, on the other hand, produced a more divided ruling on the question of whether a prosecutor may comment at trial on a criminal defendant’s pre-custodial silence. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy, while Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Scalia. The key split here is that Justice Alito found a way to avoid the broader constitutional question, yielding a more minimalist ruling, whereas Justices Thomas and Scalia were prepared to reach it. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by the remaining liberals.
Finally, in a non-5-4 decision, in Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council, Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court holding that the National Voter Registration Act preempts Arizona’s law requiring individuals include proof of citizenship with their voter registration forms. Justice Scalia was joined by the Chief Justice and the four liberals. Justice Kennedy concurred in part and concurred in the judgment, and Justices Alito and Thomas each dissented separately.
As always, you can find more details about these cases — and today’s four cert grants — at SCOTUSBlog.