THE STATISTICS TABLE Ia (A) ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES OPINIONS WRITTENb DISSENTING VOTESc In Disposition by Opinions Concur- Memo- d e e f of Court rences Dissents TOTAL Opinion randum TOTAL Roberts 8 3 3 14 8 2 10 Stevens 6 13 14 33 26 1 27 Scalia 8 15 6 29 11 4 15 Kennedy 9 8 4 21 8 1 9 Thomas 8 13 5 26 16 3 19 Ginsburg 9 3 3 15 19 1 20 Breyer 9 6 9 24 22 1 23 Alito 8 10 7 25 11 2 13 Sotomayor 8 2 5 15 17 0 17 Per Curiam 14 — — 14 — — — Total 87 73 56 216 138 15 153 a A complete explanation of how the tables are compiled may be found in The Supreme Court, 2004 Term — The Statistics, 119 HARV. L. REV. 415, 415–19 (2005). Table I, with the exception of the dissenting votes portion of section (A) and the memoran- dum tabulations in section (C), includes only full-opinion decisions. Fourteen per curiam deci- sions contained legal reasoning substantial enough to be considered full-opinion decisions during October Term 2009. These cases were Sears v. Upton, 130 S. Ct. 3259 (2010); Jefferson v. Upton, 130 S. Ct. 2217 (2010); Kiyemba v. Obama, 130 S. Ct. 1235 (2010); Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010); Thaler v. Haynes, 130 S. Ct. 1171 (2010); Wellons v. Hall, 130 S. Ct. 727 (2010); Pres- ley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010); Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705 (2010); McDaniel v. Brown, 130 S. Ct. 665 (2010); Michigan v. Fisher, 130 S. Ct. 546 (2009); Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (2009); Wong v. Belmontes, 130 S. Ct. 383 (2009); Bobby v. Van Hook, 130 S. Ct. 13 (2009); and Corcoran v. Levenhagen, 130 S. Ct. 8 (2009). This table thus includes every opinion designated by the Court as a 2009 Term Opinion except for two. See 2009 Term Opinions of the Court, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/ slipopinions.aspx (last visited Oct. 2, 2010). These two cases are Weyhrauch v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010), which the Court remanded for further proceedings in light of Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010); and Briscoe v. Virginia, 130 S. Ct. 1316 (2010), which the Court remanded for further proceedings in light of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009). A memorandum order is a case decided by summary order and contained in the Court’s weekly order lists issued throughout the Term. This category thus excludes summary orders des- ignated as opinions by the Court. The memorandum tabulations include memorandum orders disposing of cases on their merits by affirming, reversing, vacating, or remanding. They exclude orders disposing of petitions for certiorari, dismissing writs of certiorari as improvidently granted, dismissing appeals for lack of jurisdiction, disposing of miscellaneous applications, and certifying questions for review. The memorandum tabulations also exclude orders relating to payment of docketing fees and dissents therefrom. 411 412 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 124:411 TABLE I (continued) b This portion of Table I(A) includes only opinions authored in the eighty-seven cases with full opinions this Term. Thus, dissents from denials of certiorari and concurrences or dissents from summary affirmances are not included. A concurrence or dissent is recorded as a written opinion whenever its author provided a reason, however brief, for his or her vote. c A Justice is considered to have dissented whenever he or she voted to dispose of the case in any manner different from the manner specified by the majority of the Court. d A plurality opinion that announced the judgment of the Court is counted as the opinion of the Court. Thus, for example, Justice Alito’s opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), is considered the opinion of the Court in that case. e Opinions concurring in part and/or concurring in the judgment are counted as concurrences. Opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part are counted as dissents. f Dissenting votes in memorandum decisions include instances in which Justices expressed that they would not dispose of the case by memorandum order. See, e.g., Republican Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 3544 (2010) (mem.). This category does not include dissenting votes in orders relating to stays of execution; that information is presented in Table II(F) and its accompa- nying footnotes. 2010] THE SUPREME COURT — THE STATISTICS 413 TABLE I (continued) g (B1) VOTING ALIGNMENTS ALL WRITTEN OPINIONS mayor nedy erts o vens n b e Ke Ginsburg Scalia Thomas Breyer Alito Sot Ro St O — 42 56 67 55 56 51 63 53 S — 1 2 2 3 3 2 5 1 Roberts D — 43 58 69 58 59 53 67 54 N — 86 87 87 87 87 86 85 81 P (%) — 50.0 66.7 79.3 66.7 67.8 61.6 78.8 66.7 O 42 — 29 45 29 45 44 35 45 S 1 — 1 4 1 17 17 0 17 Stevens D 43 — 30 49 30 60 61 35 60 N 86 — 86 86 86 86 85 84 80 P (%) 50.0 — 34.9 57.0 34.9 69.8 71.8 41.7 75.0 O 56 29 — 52 51 39 36 52 37 S 2 1 — 2 17 0 1 3 0 Scalia D 58 30 — 54 67 39 37 54 37 N 87 86 — 87 87 87 86 85 81 P (%) 66.7 34.9 — 62.1 77.0 44.8 43.0 63.5 45.7 O 67 45 52 — 49 56 52 59 53 S 2 4 2 — 2 4 3 3 3 Kennedy D 69 49 54 — 50 60 55 62 56 N 87 86 87 — 87 87 86 85 81 P (%) 79.3 57.0 62.1 — 57.5 69.0 64.0 72.9 69.1 O 55 29 51 49 — 39 36 50 37 S 3 1 17 2 — 2 1 5 1 Thomas D 58 30 67 50 — 41 37 55 38 N 87 86 87 87 — 87 86 85 81 P (%) 66.7 34.9 77.0 57.5 — 47.1 43.0 64.7 46.9 O 56 45 39 56 39 — 54 47 56 S 3 17 0 4 2 — 16 3 16 Ginsburg D 59 60 39 60 41 — 70 50 69 N 87 86 87 87 87 — 86 85 81 P (%) 67.8 69.8 44.8 69.0 47.1 — 81.4 58.8 85.2 O 51 44 36 52 36 54 — 43 53 S 2 17 1 3 1 16 — 2 14 Breyer D 53 61 37 55 37 70 — 45 67 N 86 85 86 86 86 86 — 84 80 P (%) 61.6 71.8 43.0 64.0 43.0 81.4 — 53.6 83.8 O 63 35 52 59 50 47 43 — 43 S 5 0 3 3 5 3 2 — 0 Alito D 67 35 54 62 55 50 45 — 43 N 85 84 85 85 85 85 84 — 79 P (%) 78.8 41.7 63.5 72.9 64.7 58.8 53.6 — 54.4 O 53 45 37 53 37 56 53 43 — S 1 17 0 3 1 16 14 0 — Sotomayor D 54 60 37 56 38 69 67 43 — N 81 80 81 81 81 81 80 79 — P (%) 66.7 75.0 45.7 69.1 46.9 85.2 83.8 54.4 — 414 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 124:411 TABLE I (continued) h (B2) VOTING ALIGNMENTS NON-UNANIMOUS CASES mayor nedy erts o vens n b e Ke Ginsburg Scalia Thomas Breyer Alito Sot Ro St O — 24 38 49 37 38 33 46 35 S — 1 2 2 3 3 2 5 1 Roberts D — 25 40 51 40 41 35 50 36 N — 68 69 69 69 69 68 68 63 P (%) — 36.8 58.0 73.9 58.0 59.4 51.5 73.5 57.1 O 24 — 11 27 11 27 26 18 27 S 1 — 1 4 1 16 17 0 16 Stevens D 25 — 12 31 12 42 43 18 42 N 68 — 68 68 68 68 67 67 62 P (%) 36.8 — 17.6 45.6 17.6 61.8 64.2 26.9 67.7 O 38 11 — 34 33 21 18 35 19 S 2 1 — 2 16 0 1 3 0 Scalia D 40 12 — 36 49 21 19 37 19 N 69 68 — 69 69 69 68 68 63 P (%) 58.0 17.6 — 52.2 71.0 30.4 27.9 54.4 30.2 O 49 27 34 — 31 38 34 42 35 S 2 4 2 — 1 4 3 3 3 Kennedy D 51 31 36 — 32 42 37 45 38 N 69 68 69 — 69 69 68 68 63 P (%) 73.9 45.6 52.2 — 46.4 60.9 54.4 66.2 60.3 O 37 11 33 31 — 21 18 33 19 S 3 1 16 1 — 2 1 5 1 Thomas D 40 12 49 32 — 23 19 38 20 N 69 68 69 69 — 69 68 68 63 P (%) 58.0 17.6 71.0 46.4 — 33.3 27.9 55.9 31.7 O 38 27 21 38 21 — 36 30 38 S 3 16 0 4 2 — 16 3 15 Ginsburg D 41 42 21 42 23 — 52 33 51 N 69 68 69 69 69 — 68 68 63 P (%) 59.4 61.8 30.4 60.9 33.3 — 76.5 48.5 81.0 O 33 26 18 34 18 36 — 26 35 S 2 17 1 3 1 16 — 2 14 Breyer D 35 43 19 37 19 52 — 28 49 N 68 67 68 68 68 68 — 67 62 P (%) 51.5 64.2 27.9 54.4 27.9 76.5 — 41.8 79.0 O 46 18 35 42 33 30 26 — 26 S 5 0 3 3 5 3 2 — 0 Alito D 50 18 37 45 38 33 28 — 26 N 68 67 68 68 68 68 67 — 62 P (%) 73.5 26.9 54.4 66.2 55.9 48.5 41.8 — 41.9 O 35 27 19 35 19 38 35 26 — S 1 16 0 3 1 15 14 0 — Sotomayor D 36 42 19 38 20 51 49 26 — N 63 62 63 63 63 63 62 62 — P (%) 57.1 67.7 30.2 60.3 31.7 81.0 79.0 41.9 — 2010] THE SUPREME COURT — THE STATISTICS 415 TABLE I (continued) g Table I(B1) records the frequency with which each Justice voted with each other Justice in full-opinion decisions, including the fourteen per curiam decisions containing sufficient legal rea- soning to be considered full opinions.