That may be Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn, the case on violent video games. It produced surely the most interesting array of voting blocs, with Justice Scalia writing for Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan; Chief Justice Roberts joining Justice Alito’s concurrence in the judgment; and Justices Thomas and Breyer each dissenting separately, though nodding in one another’s direction approvingly.
I find the opinions by Justices Alito and Thomas to be the most thoughtful, and the soundest on the Constitution. Justice Scalia’s opinion is, uncharacteristically, intellectually thin gruel, salted too heavily with reliance on precedents which, on his best days, Scalia would scoff at. For interesting takes on the issues in the case, I recommend Peter Berkowitz at today’s Wall Street Journal (behind paywall) and two pieces posted at First Things today, by Archbishop Charles Chaput and Gregory K. Laughlin (who had me right up to an unconvincing final paragraph).
I just now noticed that FT has posted a third piece, by Robert T. Miller, taking Scalia’s side in the case. Must read that too, but what Scalia couldn’t manage, will Miller?
Update: The answer to my final question is no.