&gt; Sotomayer, Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan concurred with the original decision, but wrote separate decisions bring up these exact points.<p>Strictly speaking, only Sotomayor concurred in the original <i>decision</i>, Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan concurred in the <i>judgement</i> (that is, the <i>result</i>).<p>The difference is significant in general, because the decision includes the rationale, and the Alito opinion (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan) disagrees with the rationale of the majority opinion. (That is, the majority held trespass to be decisive, Sotomayor agreed that it was in this case, but explicitly wrote a concurrence to argue that trespass wasn&#x27;t <i>necessary</i> for a violation, and the other four agreed that GPS was a violation, but disagreed that trespass was an appropriate consideration.)<p>That is, there were four justices who believed that the GPS tracker was a violation because of the trespass to the target&#x27;s property, four justices who though it was a violation for other reasons, but not because it was trespass to property, and one who thought it was violation because of trespass to property <i>as well as</i> other reasons.<p>Which results in the interesting situation, in that there were different (but overlapping with Sotomayor in both) 5-vote majorities <i>both</i> for the violation due to trespass view and the violation due to reasons-other-than-trespass view.