Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Marshall v. Marshall
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Holmes v. South Carolina
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–C.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined.
Brigham City v. Stuart
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion.
Garcetti v. Ceballos
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
So! After 44 signed rulings, 41 count for our purposes, with three having been excluded due to recusals.
Of the above 9 rulings Roberts and Thomas were in agreement 100% of the time.
In S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Souter while Scalia joined as to all but Part III-C. (so close - d'oh!)
So, drumroll please!
Roberts/Scalia: 90.244% (agree in 37 of 41)
Roberts/Thomas: 82.927% (agree in 34 of 41)
After 44 signed rulings in 41 of which all three participated.
And, yet again, for the sake of curiosity:
Roberts/Kennedy: 87.805%
Roberts/Souter: 85.366%
Next installment to post soon after 50 applicable signed rulings!
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part III. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., and BREYER, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Zedner v. United States
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–A–2. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
House v. Bell
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, inwhich SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Hill v. McDonough
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Hudson v. Michigan
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinionconcurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, III, and IV. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Howard Delivery Service, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Rapanos v. United States
SCALIA, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered anopinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Davis v. Washington
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Samson v. California
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined.
So again! After 55 signed rulings, 52 count for our purposes, with three having been excluded due to recusals. Technically, we could also count the per curiam ruling in Youngblood v. West Virginia, as Scalia filed a dissent that was joined by Thomas (and Kennedy filed his own separate dissent). For consistency that one's excluded, but if it were factored in then it'd be one more case where Roberts differed from both Scalia and Thomas, as the Chief Justice joined the per curiam.
Now, by contrast to last installment's unanimity, the above 11 rulings were a mess! These were the discrepancies between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas:
In Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., Roberts and Scalia joined the majority ruling by Kennedy with Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In Zedner v. United States, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Alito while Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
In Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Souter while Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
In Davis v. Washington, Roberts joined the majority ruling by Scalia while Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
OK, drumroll please!
Roberts/Scalia: 88.462% (agree in 46 of 52)
Roberts/Thomas: 82.692% (agree in 43 of 52)
After 55 signed rulings in 52 of which all three participated.
And, once again, for the sake of curiosity:
Roberts/Kennedy: 80.769% (agree in 42 of 52)
Roberts/Souter: 76.923% (agree in 40 of 52)
And, while we're at it, Alito and Roberts parted ways in two rulings above, so for the 21 cases where both have participated, the agreement is:
Roberts/Alito: 90.476% (agree in 19 of 21)
Next installment to post soon after 50 applicable signed rulings!
PS. When factoring in the new per curiam rulings and the consolidated cases, the maximum possible number of signed rulings for the term that would apply to our purposes is now 68. Therefore, with 9 deviations between Thomas and Roberts, our wager is settled (in my favor) at least so far as the two of them.