Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confed Veterans.
The decision is by Justice Breyer.
Fifth Circuit is reversed.
The decision is a 5-4. Alito dissents, joined by Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy. Majority picks up Thomas.
Holding: Texas's specialty license plate design constitutes government speech, and thus Texas was entitled to refuse to issue plates featuring the proposed Confederate Veterans' design.
Wow. That's an interesting one. Holding goes on to say that when government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says.
Lovers of Justice Scalia and/or the confrontation clause should DEFINITELY check out Scalia's concurrence in the judgment in Ohio v. Clark. It is some sharply worded stuff -- accuses Alito of "shoveling dirt" on the grave of the key precedents, and using intentionally confusing "dicta" to try to undermine the clause's protections.
This is Kevin Russell's case.
Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.
The vote is unanimous except that the Chief concurs in part and concurs in the judgment.
Holding: When a controlled substance is an analogue, the statute requires the government to establish that the defendant knew he was dealing with a substance regulated under the Controlled Substances Act or Analogue Act.
What will it be? The suspense is killing me.
Won't be from Ginsburg, but could be from Kennedy, Scalia, or the Chief.
McFadden was argued at the end of April, so this was pretty quick even for a unanimous decision.
Last one. Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
Thomas has the opinion for the Court.
Decision of the Ninth Circuit is vacated and remanded.
The end result is unanimous, although there are three concurring opinions: Alito, joined by Kennedy and Sotomayor; Breyer concurs in the judgment; KAgan concurs in the judgment, joined by Ginsburg and Breyer.
I don't type the words "Alito, joined by Kennedy and Sotomayor" very often.
The sign code's provisions are content-based regulations of speech that do not survive strict scrutiny.
In Kevin's McFadden case, the case was remanded to determine whether the error was harmless.
That's all for today. Plenty to keep the First Amendment and criminal law folks busy today.
Okay, so that's what we have for today. We are NOT getting the opinions in same-sex marriage or King v. Burwell today.
We can expect that they will be back on Monday with additional opinions, although we don't know which ones those will be.
Thanks to the over 22k watching on the Live Blog right now -- we'll stick around and answer a few questions.