A majority opinion in Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., 381 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2004), holding that a school district did not provide a high school student with a free and appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when it failed to protect the student from bullying by fellow students who taunted the student based on his lack of athleticism and his perceived sexual orientation.

A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), granting a writ of habeas corpus to an African-American state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about African Americans during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial.

During voir dire proceedings in the Williamses? 1985 trial, the trial court asked two questions regarding racial bias:
Do you personally believe that blacks as a group are more likely to commit crimes of a violent nature involving firearms?

Can you listen to and judge the testimony of a black person in the same fashion as the testimony of a white person, giving each its deserved credibility?

All the jurors who were selected to serve answered ?no? to the first question and ?yes? to the second. The jury convicted both Williams and his brother and sentenced them to death.
…
In 1994, Ronald Williams, represented by new counsel, filed a state Post-Conviction Relief Act (?PCRA?) petition in which he contended that members of the jury had lied during voir dire when they answered the questions about racial prejudice. In support of this motion, Williams relied on a new affidavit by Montgomery and another affidavit by Jewel Hayes, who had testified at trial.

Montgomery?s affidavit stated:
[W]hen I was Juror No. 9 in the trial of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Ronald Williams and Raymond Williams . . . I was called ?a nigger lover? and other derogatory names by other members of the jury. Remarks were made to me such as ?I hope your daughter marries one of them? . . . . The jurors were given information by an alternate juror who was told by [the] Sheriff . . . that the ?men were wanted in other states and if we don?t get them another state would? and ?that Raymond [Williams, Appellant?s brother and co-defendant] was going to die anyway as he shot and crippled a man for life in Michigan. The man lived and was able and willing to testify against Raymond, so his black ass was cooked anyway.?
App. 6a.

Hayes?s affidavit averred:
Subsequent to the proceedings in this case . . . I ran into Juror Number Two (2) in the lobby of the Courthouse. . . . Upon seeing me he stated ?All niggers do is cause trouble? I am not sure whether this was stated directly to me but it was stated for my benefit and loudly enough for me to hear and to get a rise out of me. During our confrontation he also stated ?I should go back where I came from.?
App. 7a.

Among his noteworthy opinions was his lone dissent in the 1991 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

“The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems ? such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition ? that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion,” Alito wrote.
…
In a 1999 case, Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, the 3rd Circuit ruled 3-0 that Muslim police officers in the city can keep their beards. The police had made exemption in its facial hair policy for medical reasons (a skin condition known as pseudo folliculitis barbae) but not for religious reasons.

Alito wrote the opinion, saying, “We cannot accept the department’s position that its differential treatment of medical exemptions and religious exemptions is premised on a good-faith belief that the former may be required by law while the latter are not.”
In July 2004, the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law prohibiting student newspapers from running ads for alcohol was unconstitutional. At issue was Act 199, an amendment to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code passed in 1996 that denied student newspapers advertising revenue from alcoholic beverages.

Alito said the law violated the First Amendment rights of the student newspaper, The Pitt News, from the University of Pittsburgh.

“If government were free to suppress disfavored speech by preventing potential speakers from being paid, there would not be much left of the First Amendment,” Alito wrote.

In 1999, Alito was part of a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler. At issue was a holiday display in Jersey City. The court held that the display didn’t violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because in addition to a creche and a menorah, it also had a Frosty the Snowman and a banner hailing diversity.

In the case of Homar v. Gilbert in 1996, Alito wrote the dissenting opinion that a state university didn’t violate the due process rights of a campus police officer when they suspended him without pay after they learned he had been arrested on drug charges.

One of the most notable opinions was Alito’s dissent in the 1996 case of Sheridan v. Dupont, a sex discrimination case. Alito wrote that a plaintiff in such a case should not be able to withstand summary judgment just by casting doubt on an employer’s version of the story.

In Fatin v. INS (1993), Alito joined the majority in ruling that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish eligibility based on citing that she would be persecuted for gender and belief in feminism.

In a 1996 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a federal law banning the possession of machine guns, Alito argued for greater state rights in reasoning that Congress had no authority to regulate private gun possession.

“Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide (cases) aren’t too descriptive. … Judges should be judges. They shouldn’t be legislators, they shouldn’t be administrators.”

Everyone of us will die and everyone of us who’s Black will be faced by our ancestors who were slaves. And the first question they’re gonna ask is what did you do with your freedom to free other Black people. THEY’RE NOT GONNA ASK US DID WHITE PEOPLE KILL US, CAUSE WHITE PEOPLE KILLED THEM! Ladies and Gentleman we don’t have time for racial fanaticism. We are in a country that is trying to destroy us in every way possible and we must use every weapon that we can think about. And we must create new ones. But in the interim, if your life span is not spent empowering yourself politically, economically and physiologically, then don’t blame White people. Because the only person guilty is you. I laid out a plan and some would say well that’s a digression. What are you doing to empower people like you? what are you doing to fight for them? Because I assure you, our ancestors who were slaves will ask you that as soon as they welcome you where ever you’re going after you leave here.

How many crack heads do you know that’s gonna allow you to get high in front of them on their supply? Come on man…

Gwinnett County police invested hours of detective work scouring Smith’s background. Investigators specifically searched for any evidence that she had known Nichols before the courthouse shooting suspect held her hostage.

They found none.

“She was very honest and forthcoming,” said Gwinnett County Detective Steve Shaw. “There’s no indication they crossed paths.”

Shaw, who said Smith told police she gave drugs to Nichols during the ordeal, says he combed through Smith’s whereabouts going back several years. He cross-examined that information with Nichols’ past, hunting for any link between them.

“It’s nonexistent,” he said.

DeKalb County court records indicate Lovemore was the defendant in a 2003 child-support case there. According to records, the case wrapped up with a judge ordering monthly child support payments of $179. No contact information for the child’s mother was listed in court documents. Fulton County court records show a 1998 civil judgment in the amount of $400. Lovemore apparently owed a Knoxville towing company, records show.

A search of public records databases indicates Lovemore may have used a number of last names, including Jones, Harris and Harrison. The last name of the child for whom Lovemore was ordered to pay child support is Harrison, according to the DeKalb court records.

Shaw says he doubts the story Lovemore told on television.

“My personal opinion is whoever this guy is on TV was just running his mouth,” Shaw said. “It sounds like somebody’s looking for their 15 minutes of fame.”

Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter said Smith was interviewed both at the scene and in the office, and was consistent throughout the questioning.

“There’s no evidence that shows they knew each other,” Porter said.