quote:

In a splintered, 6-3 decision, the high court ruled...

The split ruling ordered the rest to be unanimous.

^^^ I wanted to argue about a solid majority being referred to as a"split decision" as well as the article's use of the phrase "splintered decision", but...I'd be completely wrong in both cases if I did. From the abstract:

"Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, II-A, III, and IV-B-1, in which Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh joined; an opinion with respect to Parts II-B, IV-B-2, and V, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor joined; and an opinion with respect to Part !V-A, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part IV-A. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined, and in which Justice Kagan joined as to all but Part III-D."

http://www.scotusblog.com/case...s/ramos-v-louisiana/

With a decision like that, if some prosecutor in Oregon got a wild hair up his/her/it's ass, there might actually be room for an appeal or several.

At any rate, the 87-page decision itself can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf