Case |
Issue |
Joined by |
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg; Scalia, Thomas (in part) |
|
|
|
Stevens |
|
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg |
|
|
Overton v. Ohio 534 U.S. 982 (2001) |
|
|
Stevens, O'Connor, Souter |
Breyer filed a statement respecting the Court's denial of certiorari. |
|
|
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
|
|
Mickens v. Taylor 535 U.S. 162 (2002) |
|
|
Ginsburg |
|
|
Barnhart v. Walton 535 U.S. 212 (2002) |
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg; Scalia (in part) |
|
|
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center 535 U.S. 357 (2002) |
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, Ginsburg |
|
|
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett 535 U.S. 391 (2002) |
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy |
|
|
|
Scalia (in part) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unanimous |
|
|
Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports Authority 535 U.S. 743 (2002) |
|
|
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
|
|
Williams v. United States 535 U.S. 911 (2002) |
|
|
Scalia, Kennedy |
Breyer dissented from the Court's denial of certiorari. |
|
Criminal procedure: Confrontation Clause |
O'Connor |
Breyer filed a dissent from the Court's decision not to transmit to Congress proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26(b), which would have permitted witness testimony via two-way video transmission. Breyer disagreed with the majority's concerns that the proposed rule was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment, and noted that transmittal of the rule would not constitute a judgment by the Court that it was constitutional. Instead, "rather than consider the constitutional matter in the context of a defendant who objects, the Court denies all litigants—prosecutors and consenting defendants alike—the benefits of advances in modern technology. And it thereby deprives litigants, judges, and the public of technology that will help to create trial procedures that are both more efficient and more fair." |
|
|
Souter, Ginsburg |
|
|
Carey v. Saffold 536 U.S. 214 (2002) |
|
|
Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg |
|
|
United States v. Fior D'Italia, Inc. 536 U.S. 238 (2002) |
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg |
|
|
|
Souter |
|
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg; O'Connor (in part) |
|
|
BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB 536 U.S. 516 (2002) |
|
|
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg |
|
|
Harris v. United States 536 U.S. 545 (2002) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States v. Ruiz 536 U.S. 622 (2002) |
|
|
Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg |
|
|
|
Stevens, Souter |
|
|
|
|
|