2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor

none February 2026 September 2023 Sandra Day O'Connor File:Sandra Day O'Connor.jpg 2005 twenty-fifth January 31, 2006 October 3, 2005 October 1, 2006 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas (3) Roberts,Roberts did not participate in one of the three cases in which O'Connor filed an opinion. Ginsburg, Breyer (2) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=05 https://web.archive.org/web/20120516151603/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=05 May 16, 2012 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders.aspx?Term=05 https://web.archive.org/web/20100527232514/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders.aspx?Term=05 May 27, 2010 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/in-chambers.aspx?Term=05 https://web.archive.org/web/20120516151732/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/in-chambers.aspx?Term=05 May 16, 2012 December 14, 2016 Sandra Day O'Connor opinions SCOTUSterm2005 yes 01 Schaffer v. Weast majority 546 49 2005 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act individualized education program challenges burden of proof Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas Stevens concurrence 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of John Paul Stevens#Schaffer v. Weast Ginsburg dissent 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Schaffer v. Weast Breyer dissent 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Stephen Breyer#Schaffer v. Weast 02 Lockhart v. United States (2005) Lockhart v. United States majority 546 142 2005 Debt Collection Act of 1982 Social Security student loan debt Unanimous Scalia concurrence 2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia#Lockhart v. United States 03 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood majority 546 320 2005 abortion parental notification facial challenge Unanimous O'Connor's opinion for the Court vacated and remanded the First Circuit's judgment that New Hampshire's parental notification law was unconstitutional, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."