Georgia v. Randolph — Scalia, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Scalia dissents, arguing that the Fourth Amendment's original meaning tied trespass to property rights, which can change without altering the Amendment's meaning. He critiques Justice Stevens' concurrence for confusing original import with background sources of law. Scalia doubts the decision advances women's equality, suggesting it may actually empower abusive husbands to stop wives from allowing police entry. Separate opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas dissented, while Justices Breyer and Stevens concurred.