The Supreme Court issued five rulings today, none likely to be seen as blockbusters.  See SCOTUSblog’s live blogging for a quick summary and links.  A few quick comments:

1.  The three rulings most likely to generate some interest are New Process Steel v. NLRB, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, and City of Ontario v. Quon.

a.  In New Process Steel, the Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that the NLRB cannot operate when it has only two members.  The vote split was not on ideological lines:  Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.  Justice Kennedy wrote the dissent, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.  (Disclosure:  The majority opinion rejects the position in a 2003 OLC opinion that I signed.)

b.  In Stop the Beach Renourishment, the Court ruled unanimously that the Florida supreme court did not take property without just compensation when it ruled that owners of beachfront property did not have “littoral rights” to future accretions.  Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, which was in parts unanimous and in other parts spoke only for a plurality.  The Chief, Thomas, and Alito joined all of Scalia’s opinion.  Kennedy, joined by Sotomayor, wrote one opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, and Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, wrote another.  (Stevens did not take part, presumably because he is an owner of Florida beachfront property.)

Update:  In Parts II and III of his opinion, Justice Scalia concludes that the constitutional bar on uncompensated takings applies to any branch of a state, including the judiciary.  It is this seemingly uncontroversial conclusion that Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor decline to join.  The reader may enjoy Scalia’s back-and-forth with Kennedy and Breyer (in II.B and II.C).

c.  In City of Ontario v. Quon, the Court ruled unanimously that a police department’s search of a police officer’s text messages was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.  Justice Scalia wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I may have additional comments on these rulings once I’ve had a chance to read them.

2.  Rulings remain to be issued in 15 cases, which include some of the most-watched cases of the term.  Expect rulings next Monday and Thursday, the following Monday, June 28 (which happens to be the day the Kagan hearing is scheduled to begin), and perhaps on one additional day that week.  (SCOTUSblog’s live blogging is the best source for immediate news and links.)

3.  Patent lawyers are apparently eagerly awaiting a ruling in Bilski v. Kappos, which I gather presents an important question regarding patent eligibility.  Bilski is the only case remaining from the November 2009 argument calendar, and Justice Stevens is the only justice who hasn’t written a lead opinion from that calendar, so there’s a good chance that he is writing Bilski.  (The tea-leaf reading for that month is complicated by the fact that one case was dismissed without decision; if that case was originally assigned to Stevens, there would be much less reason to guess that he’s writing Bilski.)