|
| Concurrence | width=25px | | Other |- | width=25px | | Dissent | width=25px | | Concurrence/dissent | white-space: nowrap |Total = | 34 |- | colspan=2 | Bench opinions = 30 | colspan=2 | Opinions relating to orders = 4 | colspan=2 | In-chambers opinions = 0 |- | white-space: nowrap colspan=2 valign=top | Unanimous decisions: 2 | colspan=2 valign=top | Most joined by: Thomas (14) | colspan=2 valign=top | Least joined by: Souter (4) |} |} |} | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |U.S. Const. amend. I: campaign finance reform | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Antitrust; telecommunications | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Unanimous decision, with three concurring justices. Scalia's 6-justice majority ruled that the allegation that an incumbent LEC had breached its duty under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to share its network with competitors failed to state a claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Employment discrimination | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from Souter's 6-3 judgment that the EEOC had incorrectly interpreted the ADEA as prohibiting employers from favoring older over younger workers. Scalia would defer to the EEOC, whose regulation he believed was a reasonable interpretation of a statute that did not unambiguously require a different interpretation. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Warsaw Convention | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from Thomas' 6-2 decision, which he criticized for failing to give any serious consideration to how courts of the partners of the U.S. in the Warsaw Convention had resolved the same legal issues |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Establishment Clause: state funding of religious education | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from Rehnquist's 7-2 decision. Scalia believed that Washington's scholarship program facially discriminated against religion by excluding only theology from the applicable subjects of study, "no less than if it had imposed a special tax." Scalia believed the plaintiff student was not asking for a "special benefit," but instead sought "only equal treatment." |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from the denial of ''certiorari''. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia believed that the Court "use() a sledgehammer to kill a gnat...The Department (Revenue )'s interpretive conclusion is certainly reasonable (the Court's lengthy analysis says that it is inevitable); it is therefore binding upon us. I would reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit on that basis. The Court's approach, which denies many agency interpretations their conclusive effect and thrusts the courts into authoritative judicial interpretation, deprives administrative agencies of two of their principal virtues: (1) the power to resolve statutory questions promptly, and with nationwide effect, and (2) the power (within the reasonable bounds of the text) to change the application of ambiguous laws as time and experience dictate. The Court's approach invites lengthy litigation in all the circuits--the product of which (when finally announced by this Court) is a rule of law that only Congress can change." |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI: Confrontation Clause | width=20% valign=top |Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia's decision, unanimous with two concurring justices, ruled that the use in court of out-of-court statements made to police in an investigative capacity violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront accusing witnesses. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Recusal | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia declined to recuse himself from a case involving Vice-President Cheney, who had recently provided Scalia with a plane ride to a duck-hunting trip. Scalia remarked that "()f it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined." He also did not believe his friendship with the Vice-President demanded recusal, because Cheney's "personal fortune or personal freedom were not at issue," only his official actions in a "run-of-the-mill legal dispute about an administrative decision." |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia joined the majority's decision in part, and filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia concurred in Souter's 6 justice opinion, with an 8-1 judgment. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Souter dissented. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from Stevens' plurality judgment. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Sovereign immunity: U.S. Const. amend. XI; Americans with Disabilities Act | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from Stevens' 5-4 decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Ginsburg dissented. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Ginsburg |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia concurred in the judgment delivered by Rehnquist. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia joined Stevens' 6-3 decision, and filed a separate concurrence. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |U.S. Const. amend. I: Establishment Clause | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from the denial of ''certiorari''. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI, right to jury trial | width=20% valign=top |Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia wrote for five justices invalidating criminal sentencing system in which judges were the finders of fact for aggravating factors. O'Connor, Kennedy, and Breyer filed dissents. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Breyer dissented. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia filed one of three dissents. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. V, habeas corpus | width=20% valign=top |Stevens |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia wrote that if habeas corpus has not been suspended by Congress, U.S. citizens must be tried in ordinary criminal courts. He believed the plurality was misguided in attempting to fashion alternative procedures that might comply with due process, because the role of the Court was simply to declare that the procedures at issue were unconstitutional. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from Kennedy's 5-justice opinion. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Legislative redistricting | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from the Court's summary affirmance. |} ==References== *(【引用サイトリンク】publisher=Supreme Court of the United States ) * * 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「2003 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|