AP reporter Gina Holland. (AP Photo Illustration)
Justice David H. Souter offers an intentionally narrow ruling.
Dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts is less than pleased.

And they were getting along so well.

The U.S. Supreme Court got hot and bothered Wednesday over what appears to be a minor ruling in the grand scheme of things -- whether police can enter a house if one resident says 'sure' and another says 'no way.' The judges ruled 5-3 that the cops are stuck outside if the couple disagrees.

It was the first heated exchange between justices since Judge Samuel Alito joined the court. He watched from the sidelines (the case was heard Nov. 8, long before he joined the court) while Justice David H. Souter and Chief Justice John Roberts took veiled shots at each other in contrasting opinions. The chief justice, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were in the minority but all filed separate dissents.

In the hopes of figuring out what got under the justices' robes, asap tracked down AP Supreme Court reporter Gina Holland.

Why was Wednesday's ruling so contentious?

Holland: The chief justice joined the bench last fall -- it's been five and a half, almost six months -- and the court has had quite a few unanimous decisions. They've issued about 30 rulings in that time, and two-thirds of those have been unanimous, so a lot of reporters at the court have been thinking 'Wow, this is an unusual harmonious court.' But this decision hints that maybe things aren't quite as happy as they seem. There was quite a bit of dissent -- there were eight different justices who participated in the case, and six different opinions. So, that tells you right there that they were all over the map. Some justices even directed criticisms at each other within their opinions. There was some swapping of barbs.

This case hardly seemed like a hot topic. Why all the hubbub over a relatively minor issue?

Holland: That's a really good question and it is surprising. They've dealt with other cases, for example on abortion, in which they weren't nearly this divided. I talked to a law professor who said 'Gosh, I'm stunned.' On its face, it doesn't look like it's that huge of a deal. But it is a constitutional claim; a lot of times the court is looking at interpreting a federal law, and that's not quite as divisive as looking at the Constitution and saying 'what are your constitutional rights?'

Any reason the court broke down along partisan lines today?

Holland: I think the court breaking down ideological lines is not that unusual, and in criminal cases especially, you often see conservative-liberal breakdowns with Justice (Anthony) Kennedy being a swing voter, and previously Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor being a swing voter.

___

Want to comment? Sound off at soundoffasap@ap.org.

©2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.