I mean, this is where you're 100% factually wrong. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf)
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III
The basics of the case, Part I, and the addendum regarding back pay, Part III, were unanimous. Part II, which regarded questions of scope that did not impact the overall result of the ruling (as all 9 agreed that there should not have been certification) was the only part with a dissent, and thus Part II is still a majority opinion but not unanimous. So yes, 9-0, as in the key part of the case and the third part, is unanimous.
no subject
The basics of the case, Part I, and the addendum regarding back pay, Part III, were unanimous. Part II, which regarded questions of scope that did not impact the overall result of the ruling (as all 9 agreed that there should not have been certification) was the only part with a dissent, and thus Part II is still a majority opinion but not unanimous. So yes, 9-0, as in the key part of the case and the third part, is unanimous.