|
| Concurrence | width=25px | | Other |- | width=25px | | Dissent | width=25px | | Concurrence/dissent | white-space: nowrap |Total = | 16 |- | colspan=2 | Bench opinions = 14 | colspan=2 | Opinions relating to orders = 1 | colspan=2 | In-chambers opinions = 1 |- | white-space: nowrap colspan=2 valign=top | Unanimous decisions: 2 | colspan=2 valign=top | Most joined by: O'Connor (11) | colspan=2 valign=top | Least joined by: Stevens (5) |} |} |} | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens and Kennedy filed dissents. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Campaign finance reform | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter; Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer (in part) |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Rehnquist filed one of three opinions for the Court. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Campaign finance reform | width=20% valign=top |Scalia, Kennedy |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Rehnquist also filed one of two opinions dissenting in part. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Establishment Clause: public funding | width=20% valign=top |Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Rehnquist wrote for a 7-2 majority that upheld a state scholarship program that excluded only theology students from consideration. Scalia and Thomas filed dissents. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Confrontation Clause: hearsay | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor |- | 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 |O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Bankruptcy; state sovereignty | width=20% valign=top |Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Thomas filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |State sovereignty; Americans with Disabilities Act | width=20% valign=top |Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Rehnquist filed one of two dissents from Stevens' 5-4 decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer; O'Connor (in part) |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Electoral redistricting | width=20% valign=top |Scalia, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Rehnquist dissented from the Court's denial of ''certiorari'', arguing that the Court should review the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of the Federal Elections Clause in the U.S. Constitution that it was up to each state to decide for itself what "Legislature" meant in the context of what branch of government was empowered to redraw legislative districts. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Article III standing; Establishment Clause | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor; Thomas (in part) |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Rehnquist filed one of three dissents from O'Connor's 6-3 decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Campaign finance reform | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Rehnquist denied a request for an injunction pending appeal. |} ==References== * * * 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 William Rehnquist」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|