Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter.
From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection."
The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court.
Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.
From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection."
The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court.
Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.