2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

none February 2026 September 2023 right|175px The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.The descriptions of two opinions have been omitted: In Toledo-Flores v. United States, 549 U.S. 69 (2006), the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. In Claiborne v. United States, 551 U.S. 87 (2007), the Court vacated the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's judgment as moot, upon being notified that the petitioner had died. Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted. Court membership Chief Justice: John Roberts Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito Purcell v. Gonzalez Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, et al. v. Maria v. Gonzalez, et al. 549 U.S. 1 October 20, 2006 Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. Stevens filed a concurrence. Named for Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, this case concerned whether to allow a new voter ID law to be enforced during the 2006 election. It was decided only 15 days prior, and established the "Purcell principle" against changing election rules very close to an election. https://www.scotusblog.com/election-law-explainers/the-purcell-principle-a-presumption-against-last-minute-changes-to-election-procedures/ THE PURCELL PRINCIPLE: A PRESUMPTION AGAINST LAST-MINUTE CHANGES TO ELECTION PROCEDURES February 8, 2022 2006 U.S. LEXIS 8000 Injunction denied, No. 06-1268, D. Ariz. Sept. 11, 2006; injunction granted, 9th Cir. official slip opinion https://web.archive.org/web/20201125092447/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06A375.pdf Burton v. Stewart Lonnie Lee Burton v. Belinda Stewart, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center 549 U.S. 147 January 9, 2007 Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. Petition denied, sub nom., Burton v. Walter, W.D. Wash.; affirmed, 21 Fed. Appx. 632 (9th Cir. 2001); cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1060 (2002); second petition denied, sub nom., Burton v. Waddington, W.D. Wash.; affirmed, 142 Fed. Appx. 297 (9th Cir. 2005) official slip opinion https://web.archive.org/web/20120319230813/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-9222.pdf Lance v. Coffman Keith Lance v. Mike Coffman, Colorado Secretary of State 549 U.S. 437 March 5, 2007 District Court for the District of Colorado vacated in part and remanded and affirmed in part. Dismissed, sub nom., Lance v. Dennis, 379 F. Supp. 2d 1117 D. Colo. (2005); vacated, remanded, 546 U.S. 459 (2006); dismissed in part, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Colo. 2006) official slip opinion https://web.archive.org/web/20110516175255/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-641.pdf Roper v. Weaver Don Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correction Center, Petitioner v. William Weaver 550 U.S. 598 March 21, 2007 May 21, 2007 The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. The Court wrote that it was "now aware of circumstances that persuade us that dismissal of the writ is the appropriate manner in which to dispose of this case." The Court had granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeals had correctly applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in setting aside Weaver's capital sentence that he challenged by a petition of habeas corpus. Upon review, the Court discovered that Weaver only filed the current habeas petition after the enactment of AEDPA because the District Court had erroneously dismissed Weaver's first petition. As two other petitioners were "virtually identically situated" to Weaver yet not governed by AEDPA's stricter standards, the Court dismissed so a different legal standard would not apply to Weaver's case simply because the District Court had committed an error. Roberts filed a concurrence, stating that he did not agree with all of the reasons given in the Court's per curiam opinion, but that he agreed with the disposition. Scalia filed a dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito. Sentence vacated, sub nom. Weaver v. Bowersox, 438 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2006) official slip opinion https://web.archive.org/web/20120319230903/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-313.pdf Los Angeles County v. Rettele Los Angeles County, California, et al. v. Max Rettele et al. 550 U.S. 609 May 21, 2007 Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner, even though the individual in the home they searched was engaging in private, non-criminal activity. In this case, the officers entered a home pursuant to a valid warrant. They found two people asleep in bed. At gunpoint, they ordered the nude people out of the bed. These people were not related to the investigation and were not the same race as the person described in the warrant.John D. Castiglione, Human Dignity Under the Fourth Amendment, 2008 Wisconsin L. Rev. 101 (2008), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1028072 The District Court had granted summary judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment and were not entitled to qualified immunity, because a reasonable deputy would have stopped the search upon discovering that the respondents were of a different race than the suspects and because a reasonable deputy would not have ordered respondents, who were unclothed, from their bed. The Court reversed, stating that because the Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue based on probable cause, "a standard well short of absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter a house when residents are engaged in private activity; and the resulting frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not violated." Souter noted without separate opinion that he would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. Stevens filed a concurrence, joined by Ginsburg. 2007 U.S LEXIS 5900 Summary judgment for defendants; reversed, 186 Fed. Appx. 765 (9th Cir. 2006); rehearing en banc denied official slip opinion https://web.archive.org/web/20120319230908/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-605.pdf Erickson v. Pardus William Erickson v. Barry J. Pardus, et al. 551 U.S. 89 June 4, 2007 Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded. Scalia noted without separate opinion that he would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. Thomas filed a dissent. Dismissed, D. Colo.; affirmed, 198 Fed. Appx. 694 (10th Cir. 2006) official slip opinion https://web.archive.org/web/20120319230914/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-7317.pdf See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 549 List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 550 List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 551 Notes References References https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/06 2006 Term Opinions of the Court Supreme Court of the United States March 20, 2010 October 2, 2006 September 30, 2007 2006 Category:United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions Category:Lists of 2006 term United States Supreme Court opinions *2006 per curiam