|
| Concurrence | width=25px | | Other |- | width=25px | | Dissent | width=25px | | Concurrence/dissent | white-space: nowrap |Total = | 20 |- | colspan=2 | Bench opinions = 19 | colspan=2 | Opinions relating to orders = 1 | colspan=2 | In-chambers opinions = 0 |- | white-space: nowrap colspan=2 valign=top | Unanimous decisions: 3 | colspan=2 valign=top | Most joined by: Scalia (12) | colspan=2 valign=top | Least joined by: O'Connor (2)〔Justice O'Connor retired January 31, 2006; of the justices who participated in the entire term, Justice Stevens joined the fewest opinions by Thomas, with four.〕 |} |} |} | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Roberts, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Ginsburg filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia filed the other dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Roberts, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Whether illegality of contract under state law precludes arbitration clause | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Reiterated earlier belief that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preclude state law. Thomas was the sole dissenter from Scalia's 7-1 opinion. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Statutory immunity of USPS from suit | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Thomas dissented from Kennedy's 7-1 opinion. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Antitrust: applicability to joint ventures | 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 |Thomas filed one of three dissents. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |U.S. Const. amend. XI: Sovereign immunity of counties | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Due process: U.S. Const. amend. XIV: notice requirements to property owner prior to tax sale | width=20% valign=top |Scalia, Kennedy |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Thomas dissented from Roberts' decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Patent | 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 |Thomas joined the majority in part, and filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part from Scalia's otherwise unanimous opinion. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI: right to a jury trial | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Thomas dissented from the denial of ''certiorari'', which he thought should be granted so the Court could rule that the fact of a prior conviction, when an element of a crime, should be decided by a jury. Thomas believed this exception to the ''Apprendi'' rule was not found within the Constitution itself, but only derived from prior precedent that a majority of the Court no longer supported. "The Court’s duty to resolve this matter is particularly compelling, because we are the only court authorized to do so. And until we do so, countless criminal defendants will be denied the full protection afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, notwithstanding the agreement of a majority of the Court that this result is unconstitutional. There is no good reason to allow such a state of affairs to persist." |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Death penalty | width=20% valign=top |Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens and Souter filed dissents. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Roberts, Scalia, Souter, Breyer, Alito |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Scalia |- | 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 |Habeas corpus; presidential authority to try prisoners in military commissions | width=20% valign=top |Scalia; Alito (in part) |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Thomas filed one of three dissents. |} ==Notes== 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「2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Clarence Thomas」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|