Two of today's Supreme Court decisions have quite interesting lineups. In Howard Delivery Services v. Zurich American Insurance Co., a bankruptcy case, Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority for herself, the Chief Justice, and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, and Breyer. Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by Justices Souter and Alito.

Empire Healthchoice Assurance Inc. v. McVeigh, a section 1331 case arising in the health insurance context, produced a very similar lineup. Justice Ginsburg again wrote the majority, for herself, the Chief Justice, and Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Thomas. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, and Alito.

Not only are these divisions somewhat unusual, but they are also interesting in that near identical splits occurred in both cases, despite the different questions at issue. Given that I know very little about the subject matter at issue in either case, I will leave it to others to explain why the justices divided along these lines and what, if anything, this tells us about the future of the Roberts Court.

UPDATE: The Bankruptcy LItigation Blog has a post on plain meaning, the bankruptcy code, and the lineup in Howard Delivery Services that is quite interesting (by bankruptcy law standards -- a subject about which I know nada).

Today's decision with the most interesting lineup is undoubtedly United States v. Gonzales-Lopez. In this case, the court held, 5-4, that if a trial court erroneously deprives a criminal defendant of his choice of defense counsel, the defendant is entitled to a reversal of his conviction under the Sixth Amendment. Justice Scalia wrote the majority, for himself and Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Alito dissented, writing for himself, the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy and Thomas. The opinions are here.