"A “criminal case” at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings, and police questioning does not constitute such a case. Statements compelled by police interrogation may not be used against a defendant in a criminal case, but it is not until such use that the Self-Incrimination Clause is violated."

....Martinez was no more compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself than an immunized witness forced to testify on pain of contempt. That an immunized witness knows that his statements may not be used against him, while Martinez likely did not, does not make the immunized witness’ statements any less compelled and lends no support to the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that coercive police interrogations alone violate the Fifth Amendment.

....Martinez cannot make the “powerful showing” necessary to expand protection of the privilege against self-incrimination to the point of the civil liability he requests.

Here's how the Justices lined up:

Thomas, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, which was joined by Rehnquist, C. J., in full, by O’Connor, J., as to Parts I and II—A, and by Scalia, J., as to Parts I and II. Souter, J., delivered an opinion, Part II of which was for the Court and was joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., and Part I of which concurred in the judgment and was joined by Breyer, J. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part in the judgment. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Stevens, J., in full and by Ginsburg, J., as to Parts II and III. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Update: Howard Bashman of How Appealing tells us what it all means.

And my head is still spinning from the opinions issued in Chavez. Justice Clarence Thomas announced the judgment of the Court but did not garner a majority for any portion of his decision. Justice David H. Souter did garner a majority for a single paragraph of his separate opinion. And, by the way, that single paragraph is contrary to the "judgment" that Justice Thomas has announced -- a point that seems to afford Justice Antonin Scalia endless glee in his separate opinion. Does anyone remember any previous instance when the Justice who announced the judgment of the Court issued an opinion in which a majority of the Court failed to join in any respect, while some other Justice's opinion was joined in by a majority of the Court. The whole case seems so messed up -- the judgment that Justice Thomas has announced says "reversed" and that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, while a majority of Justices appears to hold that one of the two "reversed" claims can proceed forward on remand -- that it really makes me wonder why the Court, with one month still to go in the Term, didn't take even more time to try to sort out further these obvious inconsistencies.