From Tuesday's decision in Limtiaco v. Camacho:

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting inpart, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

  The decision was unanimous as to jurisdiction, but divided 5-4 on the merits on a question of statutory interpretation — whether the phrase "tax valuation" in 48 U. S. C. §1423a means "assessed value." Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer took a textualist approach and conclude that the answer is "yes." Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Alito took a purposivist approach and conclude that the answer is "no."

  Justice Alito's decision to join a purposivist opinion reminds me of his second opinion for the Court, Zedner v. United States, in which Alito included a section on legislative history even though Justice Scalia objected and refused to join the full opinion. As I wrote on Zedner at the time: "Alito's use of legislative history may surprise those who were expecting him to be a Scalia clone. But as I and others have been saying for a long time, Alito isn't a Scalia clone."