THOMAS, J., concurring plained, the concurring justices who also voted to affirm petitioner's sentence did not perform a curative reweighing, while the dissenter voted to reverse. Therefore petitioner's sentence is invalid, whether or not the principal opinion properly relied upon the "especially heinous, cruel or depraved" factor. III Petitioner's death sentence was tainted by Eighth Amendment error when the sentencing judge gave weight to an unconstitutionally vague aggravating factor. The Supreme Court of Arizona did not cure this error, because the two justices who concurred in affirming the sentence did not actually perform a new sentencing calculus. Thus the sentence, as it stands, violates the Eighth Amendment. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand with instructions to return the case to the District Court to enter an order granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the State of Arizona within a reasonable period of time either corrects the constitutional error in petitioner's death sentence or vacates the sentence and imposes a lesser sentence consistent with law. It is so ordered. JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. The Court holds that the concurring Arizona Supreme Court justices violated the rule of Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990), by failing to reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances after concluding that only two of the three aggravating circumstances found by the trial court were present in this case. Respondents do not claim that this rule is a new one for purposes of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), and that it is consequently unavailable to a habeas petitioner. The reason, presumably, is that a Teague defense is foreclosed by Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222 (1992), which held that "there was no arguable basis" in Feb SCALIA, J., dissenting ruary 1985 to support the view that an appellate court in a weighing State "was permitted to apply a rule of automatic affirmance to any death sentence supported by multiple aggravating factors, when one is invalid." Id., at 231. Under Stringer, the concurring Arizona Supreme Court justices. cannot be excused for their failure to reweigh; any reasonable jurist should have known that "automatic affirmance" in a weighing State violates the Eighth Amendment.* I joined the dissent in Stringer, and I continue to think that case was wrongly decided. In particular, I remain convinced that Stringer transformed Teague's retroactivity principle from a rule that validates "reasonableness" into a rule that mandates "prescience." 503 U. S., at 244 (SOUTER, J., dissenting). Had Stringer been decided differently, petitioner could not now complain that two Arizona Supreme Court justices violated the Constitution in 1983 by neglecting to reweigh. Nevertheless, because Stringer is good law, and because I agree that the concurring justices in this case did not reweigh, I join the Court's opinion. JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting. The Court today holds that Justice Cameron's special concurrence erred in that, after having found that this murder was not committed in an "especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner," Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(F)(6) (1989), it failed thereupon to reweigh the remaining aggravating and mitigating circumstances before affirming petitioner's death sentence. The Court does not reach petitioner's claim that Chief Justice Holohan's opinion erred in applying the Arizona *Richmond's conviction became final on November 14, 1983-15 months before Stringer's conviction became final. I cannot imagine, however, that this distinction renders Stringer inapplicable to this case. The decision in Stringer rested on the premise that the rule against automatic affirmance "emerges not from any single case," but from a "long line of authority," Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S., at 232, and that "line of authority" consists entirely of cases decided before Richmond's conviction became final, see id., at 227-232. SCALIA, J., dissenting limiting construction of this aggravating circumstance, see State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 659 P. 2d 1, cert. denied, 461 U. S. 971 (1983), and in thus finding this murder to have been "heinous." Under Arizona law, a murderer is eligible for the death penalty if the trial court finds at least one statutory aggravating circumstance. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13–703(E) (1989). Even accepting both of petitioner's arguments with regard to the "especially heinous, cruel or depraved" factor, it is beyond dispute that two constitutionally valid aggravating circumstances were found— namely, that petitioner had "been convicted of another offense in the United States for which under Arizona law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable" (specifically, first-degree murder), § 13-703(F)(1), and that petitioner had been "previously convicted of a felony in the United States involving the use or threat of violence on another person" (specifically, armed kidnaping), § 13–703(F)(2). App. 73-74. Thus, the death sentence unquestionably complied with the narrowing requirement imposed by the line of cases commencing with Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). In my view this Court has no colorable basis, either in constitutional text or in national tradition, for imposing upon the States a further constitutional requirement that the sentencer consider mitigating evidence, see Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, 671-673 (1990) (SCALIA, J., opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As this and other cases upon our docket amply show, that recently invented requirement has introduced not only a mandated arbitrariness quite inconsistent with Furman, but also an impenetrable complexity and hence a propensity to error that make a scandal and a mockery of the capital sentencing process. Since in my view compliance with Furman is all that was required, any error committed by Chief Justice Holohan's SCALIA, J., dissenting opinion in finding "heinousness" was harmless, and any failure by Justice Cameron's special concurrence to reweigh raises no federal question. Accordingly, I would affirm. Syllabus SOLDAL ET UX. v. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 91-6516. Argued October 5, 1992-Decided December 8, 1992 While eviction proceedings were pending, Terrace Properties and its manager, Margaret Hale, forcibly evicted petitioners, the Soldal family, and their mobile home from a Terrace Properties' mobile home park. At Hale's request, Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff's Department deputies were present at the eviction. Although they knew that there was no eviction order and that Terrace Properties' actions were illegal, the deputies refused to take Mr. Soldal's complaint for criminal trespass or otherwise interfere with the eviction. Subsequently, the state judge assigned to the pending eviction proceedings ruled that the eviction had been unauthorized, and the trailer, badly damaged during the eviction, was returned to the lot. Petitioners brought an action in the Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, claiming that Terrace Properties and Hale had conspired with the deputy sheriffs to unreasonably seize and remove their home in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Acknowledging that what had occurred was a "seizure" in the literal sense of the word, the court reasoned that it was not a seizure as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment because, inter alia, it did not invade petitioners' privacy. Held: The seizure and removal of the trailer home implicated petitioners' Fourth Amendment rights. Pp. 61-72. (a) A "seizure" of property occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113. The language of the Fourth Amendment-which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of "their persons, houses, papers, and effects"-cuts against the novel holding below, and this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. See, e. g., ibid.; Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 350. This Court's "plain view" decisions also make untenable the lower court's construction of the Amendment. If the Amendment's boundaries were defined exclusively by rights of privacy, "plain view” seizures, rather than being scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 326-327, would not implicate that constitutional provision at all. Contrary to the Court of Ap |