Here's Lyle with the first opinion.
Justice Kagan has the opinion.
The Eighth Circuit is reversed.
There is a concurring opinion by Kennedy and by Thomas.
There is a dissent from Breyer joined by Ginsburg.
Also a separate dissent from Alito.
Holding: Becasue the elements of Iowa's burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary, Mathis's prior convictions cannot give rise to the Armed Career Criminal Act's sentence enhancement.
Two concurrences in Mathis.
So for those of you wondering what is happening now, Kagan is presumably reading her summary of the decision from the bench. We won't get the next opinion until she has finished.
Kenendy's opinion states his continued belief that Apprendi was wrongly decided.
And because the Justices issue their decisions in order of reverse seniority, we could hear from Kagan or any other Justice today.
Here's Lyle again with the next opinion.
Justice Alito has the opinion.
Sotomayor concurs and dissents in part, joined by RBG.
Thomas concurs in judgment and dissents in part.
Holding: The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrest for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests.
That's from Alito, so we could still hear from him or anyone else besides Sotomayor or Kagan today.
Sotomayor and Ginsburg would hold both kinds of test unconstitutional. Thomas would hold both constitutional.
Here's Lyle with the third opinion. It's Fisher.
The decision of the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.
Thomas dissents, as does Alito -- Thomas and Roberts joined Alito's dissent. Kagan did not participate.
The race-conscious admissions program in use at the time of Fisher's application is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.
This is not the last opinion. We have more to come . .
From Alito dissent: "Something strange has happened since our prior deci sion in this case."
Another part of the holding rejects Fisher's claim that the university did not need to consider race because it had already achieved a critical mass using the Top Ten Percent Plan.
From end of majority opinion: "The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admission policies."
Majority opinion is 20 pages; Alito's dissent is 50 pages.