In Canaglia v. Strom, the question presented was: "Whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home." (The lower court had found such an extension.)
In discussing the case earlier, I suggested that the "community caretaking" exception was pure judicial invention that, at minimum, shouldn't be extended beyond its previously-recognized application to cars:
The courts have a sorry history of (a) saying the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply as strictly to cars because, well, cars are different somehow (never mind that there were personal vehicles at the time of enactment, albeit without engines, and cars are obviously "effects" protected by the Amendment), and then (b) letting whatever exception is made up for cars extend to other situations in ways that obviously wouldn't have been accepted in the founding era. Fortunately the Supreme Court has been cutting back on this practice, and Caniglia may be an opportunity to make some more progress in that direction.
In a four-page unanimous decision yesterday written by Justice Thomas, the Court declined to extend the exception to the home. Thomas didn't undertake any originalist analysis (or, really, any analysis beyond saying that the automobile exception of Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973) was just — as that decision said — a rule for automobiles). But I'm confident he thinks there's no originalist basis for an extension — and, likely, no originalist basis for Cady either.
So, a small victory for the original meaning.
UPDATE: Josh Blackman comments at Volokh Conspiracy: Canaglia v. Strom was a subtle, and unanimous victory for originalism.
Posted at 6:16 AM