2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia

Brown v. Sanders

546 U.S. 212 (2006)

Roberts, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas

Controlled Substances Act

Gonzales v. Oregon

546 U.S. 243 (2006)

Roberts, Thomas

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna

546 U.S. 440 (2006)

Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald

546 U.S. 470 (2006)

Civil Rights Act

Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer

The Court ruled 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. Alito did not participate.

Oregon v. Guzek

546 U.S. 517 (2006)

Thomas

United States v. Grubbs

547 U.S. 90 (2006)

Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (in part)

Souter

Georgia v. Randolph

547 U.S. 103 (2006)

Day v. McDonough

547 U.S. 198 (2006)

Habeas corpus • Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

Thomas, Breyer

Ginsburg

Scalia's dissent objected 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."

Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.

547 U.S. 451 (2006)

Zedner v. United States

547 U.S. 489 (2006)

Alito

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.

Hudson v. Michigan

547 U.S. 586 (2006)

Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (in part)

Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust

547 U.S. 633 (2006)

Souter

Rapanos v. United States

547 U.S. 715 (2006)

Clean Water Act

Roberts, Thomas, Alito

Davis v. Washington

547 U.S. 813 (2006)

Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito

Youngblood v. West Virginia

547 U.S. 867 (2006)

Thomas

per curiam

Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust v. Kehoe

547 U.S. 1051 (2006)

Alito

Scalia concurred in the Court's denial of certiorari.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez

548 U.S. 140 (2006)

U.S. Const. amend. VI • right to counsel

Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Alito

Kansas v. Marsh

548 U.S. 163 (2006)

U.S. Const. amend. VIII • death penalty • balance of mitigating and aggravating sentencing factors