Based on the trend of the rulings lately, this ruling is probably not really going to be a true "5-4" ruling but more like a 3-2-2-1-1 ruling with five separate opinions where ultimately the short version is a 5-4 vote against it but lots of vaguaries and concurring and dissenting opinions so the end result ends up extremely confusing.
Kind of like Bush vs Gore where the initial opinion of the ruling was that it was in Gore's favor but after figuring out the different opinions it turned out it wasn't.
I mean, look at this for an example:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...s-apart-over-the-confrontation-clause/258634/ - Five justices essentially disagree with the final ruling. How is that possible? Ask a lawyer.