pageok
pageok
pageok
Today's Supreme Court Lineups:

The Supreme Court issued opinions in three cases today: n Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi, Shinseki v. Sanders, and Arizona v. Gant. SCOTUSBlog has early details here.

I'll leave substantive analysis of these three decisions to others. For now, I jsut wanted to note that all three were closely divided, and all three produced different lineups.

  • Elahi - Majority: Breyer, joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Stevens. Dissenting (in part): Kennedy, Ginsburg, Souter.
  • Sanders - Majority: Breyer, joined by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia,, and Kennedy. Dissenting: Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg.
  • Gant - Majority: Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Souter, Scalia, and Thomas. Dissenting: Breyer, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy.
Interesting.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Another Interesting Lineup:
  2. Today's Supreme Court Lineups:
Joe T Guest:
I see the doctrinaire right wing Roberts Court produces another set of highly politicized, partisan, contentious, party-line decisi...

Whoops, sorry. Just chanelling Bazelon/Lithwick and the pop-law crowd there.
4.21.2009 10:43am
Sum Budy:
OK, now I need to look at Gant -- what kind of case causes the most liberal and most conservative parts of the court to join forces, with the "center" (however you define that at the moment) dissenting?
4.21.2009 10:43am
Guest poster (mail):
We've seen that coalition before ... it's the "Apprendi Five." Formalism v. functionalism.
4.21.2009 10:49am
krs:
Justice Scalia's opinion in Gant makes clear that he was the "swing" vote... very interesting.

Sanders is interesting if you follow veterans benefits law.
4.21.2009 10:52am
Soronel Haetir (mail):
I also find Gant interesting because iirc Prof K thought it was a slam dunk win for the government.
4.21.2009 10:52am
Gabriel McCall (mail):
I'm pleased with the Gant ruling, although I'm concerned that, as discussed in the previous VC threads on this case, it may create a perverse incentive for police to incompletely secure suspects in order to allow for suspicionless searches.
4.21.2009 10:57am
Frog Leg (mail):
Here is Orin's post on Gant. He originally thought it would be a slam dunk win, but thought the oral argument pointed another way. He also predicted an unusual split in the opinion.
4.21.2009 10:58am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.