Perhaps the ruling today that will merit the most careful study is Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The Court ruled unanimously that the town’s ordinance governing “temporary directional signs” violated the First Amendment. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion for six justices held that the ordinance imposed a content-based regulation of speech that could not survive strict scrutiny. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, concurred only in the judgment and rejected Thomas’s determination that the ordinance was content-based.
First Amendment scholars will likely spill a lot of ink on this one. Here’s an early post by Eugene Volokh.
In Ohio v. Clark, the Court ruled unanimously that use at trial of a child’s statements to his teachers did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The opinion may be most notable for revealing the divide over what the Confrontation Clause means. In his opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Ginsburg) protests that Justice Alito’s majority opinion (for six justices) “shovel[s] fresh dirt upon the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation so recently rescued from the grave” by Scalia’s 2004 opinion in Crawford v. Washington. Justice Thomas also separately concurs in the judgment.
The sixth ruling of the day, McFadden v. United States (opinion by Justice Thomas for eight justices, with separate opinion by Chief concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), concerns the intent requirement under a criminal controlled-substances provision.