2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia

The table below lists all opinions filed by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia during the 2005 term of the Supreme Court of the United States, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006. This was the twentieth term of Scalia's tenure on the Court.
Antonin Scalia 2005 term statistics 9 Majority or Plurality 7 Concurrence 0 Other 5 Dissent 1 Concurrence/dissent Total = 22 Bench opinions = 21 Opinions relating to orders = 1 In-chambers opinions = 0 Unanimous decisions: 2 Most joined by: Thomas (11) Least joined by: O'Connor (2)

Case	Issue	Joined by
Lockhart v. United States 546 U.S. 142 (2005)
Scalia joined O'Connor's unanimous opinion, and filed a separate concurrence.
United States v. Georgia 546 U.S. 151 (2006)		Unanimous
Brown v. Sanders 546 U.S. 212 (2006)		Roberts, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
Gonzales v. Oregon 546 U.S. 243 (2006)	Controlled Substances Act	Roberts, Thomas
Scalia filed one of two dissents from the 6-3 majority by Justice Kennedy.
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna 546 U.S. 440 (2006)		Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Thomas dissented.
Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald 546 U.S. 470 (2006)	Civil rights	Unanimous
Scalia's opinion was unanimous as to the eight justices participating, in ruling that the Civil Rights Act's protection of the right to make contracts free from racial discrimination did not extend to agents of the contractors, only those who would have enforceable rights under the contracts.
Oregon v. Guzek 546 U.S. 517 (2006)
United States v. Grubbs 547 U.S. 90 (2006)		Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas; Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg (in part)
Georgia v. Randolph 547 U.S. 103 (2006)
Scalia filed one of three dissents from Souter's 5-3 decision.
Day v. McDonough 547 U.S. 198 (2006)	Habeas corpus: Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act	Thomas, Breyer
Scalia filed one of two dissents from Ginsburg's 5-4 decision, objecting that the Court's affirmance of a district court's sua sponte dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely disregarded the clear provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which required the forfeiture of affirmative defenses when they are not raised. Scalia argued that if there was truly no "dispositive difference" as the Court said between a court allowing the State to amend its answer to include the limitations argument and dismissing sua sponte, "the natural conclusion would be that there is no compelling reason to disregard the Civil Rules. Legislatively enacted rules are surely entitled to more respect than this apparent presumption that, when nothing substantial hangs on the point, they do not apply as written." At a minimum, Scalia believed it "a nontrivial value in itself" to "observe[] the formalities of our adversary system" by requiring the State to amend its own pleading. Scalia also observed that in contrast to the "novel regime" adopted by the majority, there is already a well-developed body of law regarding whether a party should have leave to amend a pleading. "Ockham is offended by today's decision, even if no one else is."
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. 547 U.S. 451 (2006)
Zedner v. United States 547 U.S. 489 (2006)	Rights of the accused
Scalia joined Alito's unanimous decision ruling that a criminal defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, except as to the part addressing the Act's legislative history. Scalia filed a separate concurrence to restate his objections to that method of statutory interpretation.
Hudson v. Michigan 547 U.S. 586 (2006)		Roberts, Thomas, Alito; Kennedy (in part)
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust 547 U.S. 633 (2006)
Rapanos v. United States 547 U.S. 715 (2006)	Clean Water Act	Roberts, Thomas, Alito
Davis v. Washington 547 U.S. 813 (2006)		Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.
Youngblood v. West Virginia 547 U.S. 867 (2006)		Thomas
Scalia filed one of two dissents from this per curiam decision.
Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust v. Kehoe 547 U.S. 1051 (2006)		Alito
Scalia concurred in the Court's denial of certiorari.
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez 548 U.S. 140 (2006)	Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI, right to counsel	Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Kansas v. Marsh 548 U.S. 163 (2006)	Death penalty: U.S. Const. amend. VIII, balance of mitigating and aggravating sentencing factors
Scalia concurred in Thomas' opinion.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry 548 U.S. 399 (2006)	Legislative redistricting	Thomas; Roberts, Alito (in part)
Scalia concurred in the fractured judgment in part, and dissented in part.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006)		Thomas, Alito
Scalia also joined Thomas' dissent, and Alito's dissent in part.