Hubbry Logo
Majority opinionMajority opinionMain
Open search
Majority opinion
Community hub
Majority opinion
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Majority opinion
Majority opinion
Majority opinion
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In law, a majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.

Not all cases have a majority opinion. Some opinions are unanimous. At other times, the justices voting for a majority decision (e.g., to affirm or reverse the lower court's decision) may have drastically different reasons for their votes, and cannot agree on the same set of reasons. In that situation, several concurring opinions may be written, none of which is the view of a majority of the members of the court. In that instance, the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as the plurality opinion.

Normally, appellate courts (or panels) are staffed with an odd number of judges to avoid a tie. Sometimes, and in some jurisdictions, when judicial positions are vacant or a judge has recused themselves from a case, the court may be stuck with a tie, in which case the lower court's decision will be affirmed without comment by an equally divided court. Since 1826, this has been the standard policy of the Supreme Court of the United States.[1]

A majority opinion in countries which use the common law system becomes part of the body of case law. However, when the court is stuck with a tie and is unable to issue a majority opinion, an affirmance by an equally divided court is res judicata and binding upon the parties, but it does not create legal precedent binding in future cases involving unrelated parties.[1]

Variations in practice by jurisdiction

[edit]

There is a key stylistic difference between the United States on the one hand, and the United Kingdom and other common law jurisdictions on the other. In the United States, the disposition of an appeal in a majority opinion is usually drafted in the present tense, so that the disposition is itself a performative utterance. That is, a U.S. court will say that "we affirm (or reverse)" the lower court's decision, or, "the decision of the [lower court] is hereby affirmed (or reversed)." By saying so, the court does so.

In the United Kingdom and many other common law countries, the disposition in a majority opinion is phrased in the future tense as a recommendation. For example, the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom end a majority opinion by stating that "I would dismiss the appeal" or "I would allow the appeal", while the Justices of the High Court of Australia end a majority opinion by stating that "the appeal should be dismissed" or "the appeal should be allowed".

The main reason for phrasing dispositions as recommendations is that historically, the highest court in the United Kingdom was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, which adhered to the legal fiction that its opinions were merely speeches delivered in debate in the House of Lords, upon motion by a member of the Appellate Committee to consider its "report" on a particular legal matter.[2] Although the actual reading of such speeches was abandoned in 1963,[2] the motion to consider the Committee's report was always immediately followed by seriatim motions to "agree to" the Committee's report, to dispose of the matter as recommended, and to award costs as recommended.[3] There was no final decision binding upon the parties until the House of Lords had formally exercised parliamentary sovereignty by voting on such pro forma motions to accept the Committee's recommendations.[2][3] In contrast, U.S. judges are not mere appendages of royal authority; as expressly envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, they act directly as agents of the true sovereign, the people.[4]

American dissenting and concurring opinions are sometimes partially drafted in the future tense, since they are speaking in terms of hypothetical situations that will not occur, as opposed to what the majority is doing in its opinion. However, even dissenting opinions may end in a present tense performative utterance, which is usually some variation on the phrase "I respectfully dissent."[5]

In some courts, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered sections. This allows judges who write an opinion "concurring in part" or "dissenting in part" to easily identify which parts they join with the majority, and which sections they do not.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Majority opinion

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A is a agreed to by more than half of the members of a , establishing the official decision and providing the authoritative rationale for that ruling. In appellate courts, such as the , it requires the support of at least five justices out of nine and serves as binding for lower courts, guiding future interpretations of . The majority opinion originates from the deliberation process following oral arguments, where justices vote on the outcome, and the justice in the majority—often assigned by the if they align with the prevailing side—drafts the document explaining the legal reasoning, , or constitutional analysis underpinning the holding. This opinion contrasts with , which endorse the result but diverge on reasoning, and , which oppose both the outcome and its justification; neither nor binds future cases. Its precedential force stems from the doctrine of stare decisis, compelling adherence unless compelling reasons justify overruling, though shifts in court composition can lead to reversals, as seen in evolving interpretations of constitutional provisions over time. Notable controversies arise when no single garners a , resulting in a plurality that announces the judgment but lacks full endorsement, thereby offering weaker guidance for and highlighting fractures in judicial . Empirically, the ideological leanings of appointing presidents influence formations, with data from recent terms showing partisan divisions correlating with 5-4 splits on high-stakes issues, underscoring that such opinions reflect institutional consensus rather than objective verity. This mechanism ensures decisiveness in but invites for potentially entrenching transient majoritarian views over enduring principles, as dissents have historically presaged doctrinal shifts.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Elements

A majority opinion constitutes the authoritative written decision of an appellate court, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, that garners the support of more than half the participating judges or justices. This threshold ensures the opinion reflects the collective judgment of the court on both the outcome and the underlying rationale, distinguishing it as the binding resolution of the case. The document typically delineates the facts of the dispute, interprets relevant statutes or constitutional provisions, and applies legal principles to reach the decreed result. Central characteristics of a majority opinion include its role in establishing binding precedent for inferior courts within the same , thereby shaping future interpretations of the law. It embodies the court's official stance, carrying presumptive authority unless overturned by higher authority or subsequent decisions. The opinion's reasoning—encompassing doctrinal , statutory , and factual synthesis—provides the foundational logic that lower tribunals must follow in analogous circumstances. In (1954), a unanimous majority opinion authored by declared state-mandated in public schools unconstitutional under the of the Fourteenth Amendment, rejecting the prior "" standard from . This 9-0 ruling articulated that such segregation generated inherently unequal educational opportunities, mandating desegregation with "all deliberate speed" and influencing civil rights thereafter.

Distinction from Judgment

In judicial proceedings, a judgment constitutes the court's formal disposition of the case, such as affirming, reversing, or vacating a lower court's ruling, thereby resolving the immediate dispute between the parties. The majority opinion, however, extends beyond this outcome by articulating the collective reasoning of at least a simple majority of justices, including interpretations of statutes, constitutional provisions, and prior precedents that justify the judgment. This explanatory component ensures decisions are anchored in the text of enacted law and judicial authority rather than discretionary policy judgments, thereby promoting consistency and predictability in the legal system. The precedential force of a majority opinion derives precisely from this depth of analysis, as it binds lower courts and future panels in analogous cases, whereas a standalone judgment lacks such interpretive guidance and persuasive weight. For instance, statutory interpretation in a majority opinion involves discerning legislative intent through textual analysis and historical context, establishing rules that constrain subsequent applications and deter judicial overreach into legislative domains. In the U.S. , per curiam opinions exemplify cases where a judgment may issue without a fully elaborated opinion; these unsigned decisions, rendered in the name of the Court, typically address routine or procedural matters with minimal reasoning, reflecting consensus but forgoing extensive precedential elaboration.

Requirements for Majority Support

A opinion in the U.S. demands the of at least five of the nine justices on both the of the case and the legal reasoning articulated in the opinion, establishing it as the binding precedent of the Court. This simple majority rule, rooted in the Court's and decisional practices, precludes fragmented support where justices endorse the outcome but diverge on rationale, which would instead yield a plurality opinion with diminished stare decisis force. Failure to secure this threshold occurs when no opinion attracts majority backing, typically resulting in the plurality opinion—authored by the justice commanding the greatest number of votes for the judgment—serving as the narrowest grounds for decision under the Marks rule. Such outcomes underscore the necessity for cohesive intellectual alignment beyond mere numerical tallying, as justices must fully subscribe to the opinion's argumentative framework to confer its authority. Empirical data from recent terms illustrate the prevalence of this requirement's fulfillment in divided cases; for instance, during the October Term 2022, approximately 47% of decisions were unanimous, with the remainder predominantly yielding majority opinions rather than pluralities, which remained exceptional. This pattern reflects the Court's operational mechanics favoring consolidated rationales to maximize doctrinal stability, though plurality formations highlight instances of irreconcilable jurisprudential divides.

Judicial Opinion Types

Plurality Opinions

A plurality opinion arises in cases where a majority of justices agree on the judgment but no single garners the support of a for its rationale, with the plurality being the one commanding the greatest number of votes, though fewer than half the . This configuration contrasts with a , where both the outcome and reasoning achieve backing, rendering the plurality's precedential force more circumscribed as it binds lower courts less definitively. The has addressed the application of plurality opinions through the "narrowest grounds" principle, directing lower courts to identify the holding as the position that can be viewed as consistent with a majority's support via the on the most limited rationale. Articulated in Marks v. (430 U.S. 188, 1977), this rule stems from the need to extract a governing standard from fragmented decisions, such as the earlier Memoirs v. (1966), where a four-justice plurality redefined criteria without full Court endorsement. Failure to apply this can foster doctrinal instability, as evidenced by circuits diverging on interpretations until higher clarification. Certain elements in (410 U.S. 113, 1973) exemplified plurality dynamics, with Justice Blackmun's opinion joined by only two other justices on key aspects of the trimester framework, supplemented by separate concurrences that aligned on the judgment to strike down the Texas statute but diverged on reasoning. This structure contributed to interpretive challenges in progeny cases, where lower courts grappled with varying degrees of adherence to the non-majority rationales, underscoring the reduced stare decisis weight of such opinions relative to unified majority holdings.

Concurring Opinions

A concurring opinion is written by a who agrees with the judgment of the but differs in the reasoning or legal analysis supporting that outcome. This form of opinion enables justices to articulate alternative rationales, narrow the scope of the majority's holding, or highlight specific interpretations without dissenting from the result. Such opinions serve to preserve a justice's position for cases, potentially signaling evolving judicial views or laying groundwork for doctrinal shifts, while preserving the majority's binding on the immediate . Unlike the majority opinion, a standalone carries no precedential weight, as lower courts must adhere only to the rationale embraced by a of justices; however, if multiple concurrences collectively represent the narrowest grounds supporting the judgment, they may acquire persuasive or even controlling influence in subsequent litigation. In the era, particularly after 2010, the issuance of concurring opinions has risen notably, contributing to more fragmented decision-making. For instance, in the 2023-2024 term, justices cast 32 concurring votes across 29 majority opinions, yielding a rate of 1.10 per opinion—a higher frequency than in prior decades. This trend has drawn scholarly for producing "legal clutter," where superfluous separate writings obscure clear holdings, complicate stare decisis application, and incentivize further challenges by creating interpretive ambiguity. Analysts argue this proliferation undermines judicial efficiency without advancing , as concurrences often prioritize individual expression over collective clarity.

Dissenting Opinions

A dissenting opinion is a formal statement authored by one or more justices who disagree with the majority opinion's disposition of the case, its legal reasoning, or both, in appellate courts including the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike the majority opinion, which establishes binding precedent, a dissent carries no precedential force but articulates an alternative interpretation of law or facts for potential future consideration. These opinions are typically joined by other justices who share the disagreement, though a justice may write separately to emphasize distinct grounds for dissent. Dissents serve to critique the majority's analytical framework, often identifying perceived errors in , constitutional application, or evidentiary weighing that could undermine judicial consistency. By documenting minority positions, they preserve arguments against prevailing doctrines, enabling later courts to revisit and potentially overturn entrenched rulings when societal conditions or legal scholarship evolve. This mechanism fosters ongoing debate within the , as evidenced by empirical patterns where dissents have seeded shifts in doctrine over decades, rather than immediate outcomes. A prominent example is Justice John Marshall Harlan's sole dissent in (1896), where he rejected the "" doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that the "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens" based on race. This position, dismissed at the time, directly informed the majority reasoning in (1954), which repudiated racial segregation in public schools by aligning with Harlan's color-blind constitutional vision. Similarly, Justice Louis Brandeis's dissent in (1928) warned against warrantless wiretapping as an unreasonable search, laying foundational arguments later adopted in (1967) to expand Fourth Amendment protections for privacy expectations. Such instances demonstrate how dissents can exert causal influence by embedding rigorous counterarguments into legal discourse, prompting reevaluation when majority views prove unsustainable against accumulating evidence or changing contexts.

Formation Process

Conference Voting

Following oral arguments, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court convene in a private conference to deliberate and cast initial votes on argued cases, typically on Fridays during the term. These sessions occur in a secure with no staff, recording devices, or outsiders permitted; the most junior Associate Justice serves as doorkeeper to ensure . The presides, opening discussion by summarizing the key arguments and issues for each case, after which Justices express their views in descending order of seniority, starting with the Chief and proceeding to the most junior. During this phase, Justices state their positions on the of the case—such as affirm, reverse, or vacate—and a tentative vote is recorded verbally, without written notes or formal tally beyond . Voting protocol emphasizes independence, with some accounts indicating that votes are expressed starting with the most junior Justice and ascending in to the last, minimizing influence from senior colleagues. A simple majority of at least five votes suffices to form the tentative alignment, which identifies the prevailing position and sets the stage for assignment to a Justice within that coalition. This process prioritizes internal legal reasoning applied to statutory text, precedents, and constitutional principles, rather than external factors like public sentiment. The of these s is absolute, with no official records released and leaks exceedingly rare, preserving candid exchange unswayed by or political . Empirical studies of disclosed internal documents reveal that these initial votes represent preliminary alignments, with fluidity observed in subsequent deliberations; for instance, analysis of and final positions across cases shows justices altering their stances in about 25% of instances overall. Such shifts underscore the tentative nature of conference voting, where the emerging majority guides but does not rigidly dictate the final outcome.

Opinion Assignment and Drafting

In the United States Supreme Court, the assignment of the majority opinion occurs immediately following the justices' conference vote on the case merits, with the responsibility falling to the most senior justice within the majority coalition. If the is part of the majority, he selects the author, deciding whether to write the opinion himself or delegate it to another majority justice based on factors such as the justice's expertise in the relevant legal area or workload balance. When the Chief Justice dissents or concurs separately, the senior associate justice in the majority—determined by seniority of appointment—takes over this role, ensuring a structured distribution that rotates according to vote alignments rather than fixed turns. For instance, has assigned opinions in approximately 66.7% of decisions during his tenure, reflecting his frequent position in narrow majorities. The assigned then drafts the initial majority opinion, often collaborating with their law clerks to analyze the case facts, interpret statutes or constitutional provisions, and integrate precedents from prior rulings. This process emphasizes rigorous legal reasoning, with citations to binding authorities serving as the foundational support for the holding, distinguishing it from mere policy advocacy by grounding conclusions in established . Assignments may strategically consider ideological diversity within the majority to foster broader consensus, as the author must secure at least five votes, prompting selections of justices capable of crafting persuasive language that accommodates varying perspectives without diluting the core rationale. However, the primary criterion remains seniority, with expertise secondary to maintaining institutional norms over favoritism.

Circulation and Finalization

Following the initial drafting, the assigned circulates the opinion internally among the other justices for review and comment. Colleagues provide feedback, which may include proposed revisions, questions on reasoning, or indications of whether they intend to join the draft, author a , or prepare a . The author then incorporates changes to address concerns, aiming to build a sufficient for support while preserving the opinion's core rationale. This iterative exchange often spans multiple versions of the draft, with justices exchanging memos and revised texts until consensus emerges or positions solidify. In closely divided cases, such as those resolved by a single vote margin, the process can extend longer due to heightened negotiation over language and scope to retain tentative supporters. Preliminary conference votes remain fluid during this phase, subject to shifts as the written influences final alignments. Upon securing a majority's agreement—manifested by justices "joining" the —the document achieves final form and is scheduled for public release, typically read from the bench if significant. The Reporter of Decisions then prepends a , an official summary of the facts, procedural history, and holdings, prepared independently of the justices to aid comprehension; this is followed by headnotes outlining key legal points in the order they appear. All opinions in the case, including any concurrences or dissents, are compiled and published together in the United States Reports.

Historical Origins

Development in English Common Law

The collective deliberation of justices in central royal courts laid the groundwork for formalized judicial consensus in English common law during the 13th and 14th centuries. The Court of King's Bench, handling criminal and appellate matters, and the Court of Common Pleas, focused on civil disputes, evolved from the as specialized benches with multiple justices, requiring coordinated judgments to resolve cases efficiently. Year Books, commencing around 1268 and extending through the , recorded these proceedings, capturing justices' arguments, rulings, and rationales, which served as nascent precedents for consistent application of law. Serjeants-at-law, the premier advocates admitted to plead in Common Pleas, contributed to this development by documenting and disseminating case details through manuscript reports, aiding the standardization of judicial outcomes across sittings. These reports, alongside Year Books compiled by law students and practitioners, emphasized the bench's unified resolutions, reflecting a procedural emphasis on majority-supported holdings to bind parties and guide future disputes, rather than individual judicial pronouncements. By the , this collective approach had solidified, with justices' agreements—implicitly majoritarian in divided panels—forming the authoritative voice of the court. This framework addressed the inherent challenges of multi-judge panels encountering interpretive disagreements on evolving doctrines, prioritizing decisive outcomes to sustain legal order amid growing caseloads. By the , Sir Edward Coke's case reports (1572–1616) exemplified the maturation of this practice, where prevailing judicial views determined holdings in contentious matters, underscoring the pragmatic shift toward explicit over rigid unanimity to avert impasse. Coke's documentation of bench deliberations reinforced common law's resilience, embedding consensus as essential for precedential force.

Early American Adoption

The established the federal court system, including a consisting of one and five associate justices, thereby creating the institutional framework for the issuance of written judicial s in the United States. This adapted English traditions by empowering the Court to decide cases through reasoned judgments, though initial practices mirrored the seriatim format prevalent in English courts, where each judge delivered a separate . Under Chief Justice (1789–1795) and Chief Justice (1796–1800), the issued relatively few opinions, primarily , with limited substantive development of federal due to circuit-riding duties and a light docket. , particularly No. 78 by , influenced this early framework by advocating an independent judiciary that rendered definitive interpretations in concrete cases rather than advisory opinions, emphasizing the Court's role in upholding the over conflicting statutes to prevent legislative overreach. The transition to standardized majority opinions occurred during Chief Justice John Marshall's tenure (1801–1835), who persuaded colleagues to abandon seriatim delivery in favor of a single "opinion of the Court" representing the majority view, enhancing institutional authority and clarity in precedent. A landmark example is Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Marshall's unanimous opinion for the Court declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, thereby establishing judicial review as a core function of majority opinions without issuing the writ sought. This practice solidified the federal judiciary's adaptation of English roots into a more unified American model, prioritizing collective judicial reasoning over individual expressions.

Jurisdictional Practices

United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court, comprising a Chief Justice and eight associate justices, requires a simple majority of at least five votes among participating justices to render a binding decision on the merits. Majority opinions, authored by one justice and joined by at least four others, provide the controlling rationale for the Court's judgment and establish mandatory precedents for all federal and state courts under the doctrine of vertical stare decisis. These opinions carry unparalleled authority within the U.S. judicial hierarchy, binding lower tribunals unless overturned by the Supreme Court itself or, in rare cases, superseded by constitutional amendment or new legislation. Approximately 10-15% of the Court's signed opinions are issued as per curiam decisions, which are unsigned by any individual justice and often address procedural matters, emergency applications, or unanimous resolutions without extended reasoning. In contrast, fully argued cases typically yield authored opinions that detail factual background, legal analysis, and policy implications, with the authoring justice selected by the if in the or by otherwise. The precedential weight of these opinions derives from their representation of the minimal coalition necessary for decision, influencing subsequent by setting interpretive boundaries for constitutional and statutory provisions. Following oral arguments, which occur in sessions from through , the enters periods of deliberation and drafting, releasing on designated days—often Mondays—through late , with recesses allocated for opinion writing to accommodate the workload of roughly 60-80 merits decisions per term. This process underscores the 's role as the definitive voice of the , as evidenced in the 2021 term's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, where a 6-3 conservative on June 24, 2022, explicitly overruled (1973), rejecting its foundation as unsupported by text, history, or tradition. The Court's current 6-3 conservative ideological composition has produced majority opinions reflecting that alignment in ideologically divided cases, with the 2023 term (October 2023 to October 2024) featuring five per curiam opinions amid broader patterns of conservative-led reversals on issues like administrative deference and Second Amendment rights. These decisions exemplify how narrow majorities can reshape doctrinal landscapes, as lower courts must adhere strictly to the articulated holdings while distinguishing facts in future applications.

State and Lower Federal Courts

In the United States courts of appeals, cases are typically heard and decided by randomly selected panels of three active circuit judges, with a simple majority—usually a 2-1 vote—sufficient to form the majority opinion and establish the court's holding. These panels operate under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35, which limits initial hearings to no more than three judges unless review is invoked. The 12 regional circuits collectively manage over 50,000 cases per year, terminating them through opinions that reflect this scaled majority process, though the full circuit's active judges number from 6 to 29 depending on the circuit. A substantial portion of these opinions—estimated at 80 to 90 percent—are unpublished and non-precedential, serving primarily to resolve the specific without binding future panels. For instance, in the 2023-2024 term, the Fifth Circuit issued 2,413 opinions, many affirming decisions without extensive analysis. En banc proceedings, triggered for uniformity or exceptional importance, require a vote among the circuit's active, non-disqualified judges to grant review, after which the full court or a designated subset (e.g., 11 judges in the Ninth Circuit) decides by simple majority. This mechanism allows circuit majorities to override panel outliers but is invoked sparingly, with less procedural formality and public attention than practices. State appellate courts, encompassing intermediate appeals courts and supreme courts, employ analogous majority opinion frameworks tailored to jurisdictional size and rules, generally requiring agreement from a simple majority of the panel or full bench. Court compositions vary, with state supreme courts ranging from five justices (e.g., in and ) to nine (e.g., in and ), such that a might entail three or five votes accordingly. While most states adhere to simple majorities for standard decisions, certain jurisdictions impose thresholds for exceptional matters, such as overruling or reviewing capital cases; for example, some state statutes or rules mandate two-thirds agreement in specified contexts to ensure broader consensus. These courts process tens of thousands of appeals annually, often with unpublished dispositions comprising the bulk, reflecting efficiency priorities over exhaustive precedential output.

Common Law Systems Outside the US

In the , the , established by the and operational since October 1, 2009, consists of 12 justices appointed for life until age 75. Cases are typically heard by panels of five justices, expanding to seven for matters potentially departing from prior or nine or eleven for cases of exceptional public importance. Decisions are determined by simple majority of the panel, with the opinion serving as the authoritative reasoning; separate concurring or dissenting judgments are permitted and published alongside the in official reports such as the UK Supreme Court Reports or Law Reports. The , comprising nine justices appointed by the on the Prime Minister's advice, generally convenes the full bench for appeals, though smaller panels of five or seven may handle preliminary matters. Binding decisions rest on a majority vote, with the majority opinion articulating the court's ; non-unanimous outcomes, termed split decisions, are common, particularly in cases under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enacted in 1982, where 5-4 divisions have appeared in rulings on issues like government liability for unconstitutional laws. Australia's , with seven justices appointed under section 72 of the Constitution for fixed terms until age 70, usually sits as a full bench for constitutional or significant appeals, though benches of five may address issues. opinions prevail as the precedent-setting judgment, but the court has historically favored unanimous or joint judgments to enhance clarity and authority, a practice rooted in Owen Dixon's mid-20th-century emphasis on institutional cohesion; unanimous decisions reached 70% of outputs in but declined sharply by 2019, with no constitutional cases unanimous that year amid rising dissents.

Civil Law Traditions

In civil law systems, such as those in and , supreme courts employ collegiate chambers comprising multiple judges who deliberate collectively and decide by internal majority vote, resulting in unified rulings that do not attribute opinions to individuals or publish dissents. This collegial process depersonalizes judicial output, emphasizing institutional consensus over personal judicial expression. The primacy of codified law—such as France's or Germany's —guides these decisions, with judges primarily tasked with interpreting and applying statutory provisions to case facts rather than developing expansive judge-made law through detailed rationales. Precedents hold persuasive value only when forming jurisprudence constante, a consistent pattern of rulings that influences future interpretations but lacks the binding force of stare decisis. In , the Cour de Cassation exemplifies this tradition, reviewing appeals on points of law in civil and criminal matters through chambers of five to seven judges who vote anonymously after deliberation, issuing terse, unified arrêts focused on legal errors relative to the code. The court publishes fewer than 15,000 decisions annually, prioritizing uniformity in over elaborate majority-dissent dynamics. Germany's follows a parallel model, with senates of professional judges deciding by majority in closed sessions and rendering collective judgments that stress code fidelity, eschewing named separate opinions to maintain doctrinal stability. This structure underscores civil law's causal orientation toward legislative codes as the foundational legal authority, subordinating judicial elaboration to statutory application.

Precedent and Stare Decisis

In the United States legal system, majority opinions issued by the establish binding under the doctrine of stare decisis, requiring lower courts to adhere to the legal principles articulated therein to ensure uniformity and predictability in the law. This vertical stare decisis binds federal and state courts to follow rulings unless explicitly overruled, as the Court's decisions reflect the authoritative interpretation of and the . Horizontal stare decisis, by contrast, applies within the itself, where the justices generally respect their own prior opinions but retain flexibility to depart when a is deemed unworkable, poorly reasoned, or inconsistent with foundational legal principles. The binding force of these majority opinions stems from the requirement that a of justices must coalesce around a common rationale to form the holding, distinguishing it from non-binding plurality or concurring opinions that lack such consensus. Lower courts treat these holdings as mandatory, promoting judicial consistency and allowing litigants to rely on established rules for planning and decision-making. However, stare decisis is not absolute; the may overrule prior precedents through a new majority opinion if it provides compelling justification, such as the precedent's deviation from original constitutional meaning or its failure to withstand scrutiny under traditional factors like workability and reliance interests. A prominent example is the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24, 2022, where a 6-3 overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), rejecting rigid adherence to stare decisis in favor of textual and historical analysis. The Dobbs evaluated stare decisis considerations—including the precedents' quality of reasoning, consistency with the Constitution's original public meaning, and actual reliance effects—and concluded that Roe and Casey were "egregiously wrong" from the outset, lacking roots in the Fourteenth Amendment's text or history, thus warranting departure to restore proper constitutional interpretation. This ruling illustrates how stare decisis enforces consistency through majority-driven precedent while permitting evolution when prior decisions undermine legal stability or fidelity to founding principles.

Influence on Future Cases

The holding of a majority opinion—the core legal rule necessary to decide the case—binds lower federal courts and state courts interpreting , requiring them to apply it in analogous situations under the of vertical stare decisis. In contrast, dicta, or non-essential observations, lack binding force but exert persuasive influence through frequent citation in subsequent opinions. Empirical analyses of citation patterns reveal that lower courts heavily reference majority holdings; for instance, studies of opinion content show that justices' language in majorities shapes lower court interpretations, with aggregate responses to signals in those opinions driving compliance rates across circuits. A prominent example is (1954), where the unanimous majority opinion held that racial segregation in public schools violated the , prompting lower courts to invalidate segregation laws nationwide and facilitating federal enforcement through cases like Green v. County School Board (1968). This decision's rationale extended beyond schools, influencing desegregation in other public facilities via subsequent litigation, though implementation faced delays due to resistance until reinforced by executive actions like the of 1964. Majority opinions interpreting the Constitution rarely face legislative override, as statutes cannot supersede such rulings without risking invalidation; Congress has successfully overridden Supreme Court statutory interpretations in about 25 instances between 1997 and 2012, but constitutional holdings require rare amendments, with historical examples limited to fewer than five major reversals via legislation or amendment. This durability channels legislative responses toward compliance or indirect workarounds, such as jurisdictional adjustments, amplifying the majority's downstream guidance on policy and adjudication.

Enforcement and Compliance

The enforcement of majority opinions issued by the of the depends heavily on cooperation from the executive and legislative branches, as the possesses no independent enforcement apparatus such as police or . Courts may compel compliance through remedial orders, including writs of directing public officials to perform nondiscretionary duties or injunctions prohibiting certain actions. In cases of deliberate noncompliance, federal courts hold inherent authority to initiate proceedings, which can result in fines, , or other sanctions to coerce adherence or punish obstruction of judicial processes. These mechanisms underscore the judiciary's reliance on institutional norms and interbranch incentives rather than coercive self-execution. Historical instances of resistance highlight vulnerabilities in this system. In (1832), the held that Georgia lacked authority to impose laws on lands, affirming federal treaty protections, yet President declined to direct federal enforcement, reportedly remarking that Chief Justice John Marshall's decision required enforcement beyond the Court's capacity. This non-compliance facilitated Georgia's continued actions, contributing to the forced removal of Native Americans under the of 1830. Such defiance, while exceptional, illustrates how executive discretion can interrupt the implementation of majority opinions when political priorities conflict with judicial mandates. In contemporary practice, outright executive or legislative defiance of rulings remains infrequent, fostering broad adherence that sustains the . Compliance typically manifests through policy adjustments, such as agency reinterpretations of statutes or cessation of challenged practices, ensuring that opinions effectuate tangible shifts in governmental conduct and . This pattern of bridges the gap between doctrinal pronouncements and real-world outcomes, reinforcing the judiciary's role in directing systemic changes without direct operational control.

Criticisms and Perspectives

Narrow Majorities and Instability

Narrow 5-4 majorities in U.S. decisions have occurred in roughly 10-20% of argued cases across recent terms, varying by year but consistently representing a minority of the docket amid higher rates of . Critics argue these slim margins undermine the stability of , rendering holdings susceptible to reversal upon shifts in composition—such as through retirements or replacements—where the loss of a pivotal justice's vote can precipitate doctrinal reversals and perceptions of judicial inconsistency. Empirically, narrow majorities contribute to persistent circuit splits among lower federal courts by offering limited or fact-bound guidance that fails to resolve broader interpretive ambiguities, thereby incentivizing more frequent petitions for to achieve uniformity. Studies confirm that acknowledged conflicts between circuits substantially elevate the likelihood of review, with splits serving as a primary grant factor in over a quarter of certiorari decisions in some analyses. Proponents of narrow majorities counter that such divisions reflect authentic, irreconcilable interpretive disputes among justices rather than inherent flaws, as evidenced by frequent cross-ideological voting patterns in contested cases, and that they compel ongoing refinement of legal principles through targeted future . This perspective posits that avoiding narrow rulings in favor of broader consensus might suppress necessary debate on complex issues, potentially stifling doctrinal evolution.

Ideological Bias Claims

Following the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority's decisions in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022), which overturned , and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of (June 29, 2023), which prohibited race-based in higher education admissions, left-leaning media outlets and commentators accused the Court of exhibiting an "extreme" right-wing bias. These rulings, rooted in originalist interpretations emphasizing constitutional text and historical understanding over evolving societal norms, were portrayed as partisan reversals of established precedents rather than corrections of prior judicial expansions lacking direct textual support, such as Roe's derivation of unenumerated . Critics from outlets like and argued the decisions disproportionately harmed marginalized groups, framing the majority as ideologically driven rather than neutrally applying law. Conservative scholars and jurists countered that these majority opinions rectified decades of liberal judicial overreach under a "" approach, which they contend injected policy preferences into constitutional interpretation absent clear textual or historical warrant—for instance, Roe's federalization of policy bypassing democratic processes. Proponents of , including affiliates, maintained that decisions like Dobbs restored by deferring abortion regulation to states, aligning with the Constitution's structure, and that SFFA enforced the Equal Protection Clause's color-blind mandate as originally understood. Empirical alignment with public sentiment supports this view on select issues; for example, pre-Dobbs polls indicated a slim majority (around 51-58%) favored some abortion restrictions or state-level control, while Second Amendment rulings like New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) reflected broad public support for individual gun rights for self-defense, with Gallup data showing consistent majorities opposing strict handgun bans. Public trust in the has declined amid these politicization claims, with Gallup reporting approval at 42% in October 2025 (down from 58% in 2000) and a record 43% viewing the Court as "too conservative," driven largely by partisan divides—75% Republican approval versus 11% Democratic. Pew Research similarly found 47% perceiving the Court as conservative in September 2025, near historic lows for favorable views at 50%. However, attributes much of this erosion to heightened visibility from controversial rulings and asymmetrical media amplification—left-leaning outlets, which dominate coverage, disproportionately highlight decisions overturning progressive precedents—rather than systemic ideological capture, as the Court's conservative shift mirrors appointment processes under and aligns with originalist methodologies applied consistently across ideologies in prior eras.

Originalism vs. Living Constitution Debates

In the context of Supreme Court majority opinions, originalism posits that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to their original public meaning at the time of ratification, constraining judicial discretion to historical evidence rather than contemporary policy preferences. This approach has been embodied in recent 6-3 majorities, such as in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (June 23, 2022), where Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion for the Court invalidated New York's restrictive concealed-carry licensing regime under the Second Amendment by rejecting means-ends scrutiny in favor of a test requiring consistency with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Originalists argue that this method promotes democratic legitimacy by limiting judges to enforcing fixed text and history, avoiding the imposition of subjective values. Proponents of the doctrine, often aligned with progressive , contend that the Constitution's broad principles must evolve to address modern societal conditions, allowing courts to adapt outdated text through evolving standards of decency or purposive interpretation. However, critics like Justice Antonin Scalia have characterized this as illusory flexibility that enables unelected judges to substitute personal policy judgments for the , effectively morphing the document into a vessel for contemporary moral convictions rather than enduring constraints ratified by the people. Scalia maintained that living constitutionalism erodes textual , permitting majorities to override democratic processes by updating meanings without amendment, as seen in prior eras of expansions. Empirical analyses of post-2018 decisions, following the appointments of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, indicate a shift toward unified original public meaning analysis in constitutional cases among the conservative , with six justices consistently prioritizing historical over balancing tests or purposivism. This has manifested in reduced reliance on judicial policymaking, as by the rejection of interest-balancing frameworks in Second Amendment and increased textual scrutiny in statutory and constitutional rulings, correlating with a decline in activist overrides of legislative enactments. Such majorities underscore originalism's role in restoring interpretive discipline, though living constitution advocates decry it as rigid ill-suited to unprecedented challenges.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/opinion
  2. https://dictionary.justia.com/majority-opinion
  3. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/how-to-read-a-u-s-supreme-court-opinion/
  4. https://couragecaliforniainstitute.org/majority-opinion/
  5. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/reproductive-rights-us-supreme-court/behind-the-scenes-how-the-u-s-supreme-court-decides/
  6. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx
  7. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/14th-amendment-and-evolution-title-ix/grove-city-college-v-bell-glossary
  8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/binding_precedent
  9. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2020/07/majority-concurring-and-dissenting-decisions/
  10. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483
  11. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/brown-v-board-education-re-enactment/history-brown-v-board-education-re-enactment
  12. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4780&context=nclr
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/per_curiam
  14. https://supreme.justia.com/reading-supreme-court-decision/
  15. https://appeal.pro/faq/what-is-a-majority-opinion-what-is-a-plurality-opinion-what-is-a-dissenting-opinion/
  16. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/us-v-alvarez/glossary-us-v-alvarez
  17. https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-numbers-reveal-a-united-supreme-court-and-a-few-surprises
  18. https://empiricalscotus.com/2023/06/30/another-one-bites-2022/
  19. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/188/
  20. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
  21. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-court-procedures
  22. https://study.com/academy/lesson/majority-concurring-dissenting-opinions-of-the-supreme-court.html
  23. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/concurring-opinions-supreme-court
  24. https://andrewdmartin.washu.edu/app/uploads/2019/01/Divide-Concur-Separate-Opinions-Legal-Change-1oyxi6x.pdf
  25. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=djclpp
  26. https://lawreview.gmu.edu/forum/legal-clutter-how-concurring-opinions-create-unnecessary-confusion-and-encourage-litigation/
  27. https://empiricalscotus.com/2024/06/05/concurrences-are-all-the-rage/
  28. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1920/
  29. https://lawreview.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/GMLR-Forum-Penrose.pdf
  30. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dissenting_opinion
  31. https://njsbf.org/2025/01/29/the-influence-of-a-u-s-supreme-court-dissent/
  32. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/plessy-v-ferguson
  33. https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5484/
  34. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-the-supreme-court-rules-against-segregation
  35. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/looking-back-famous-supreme-court-dissents
  36. https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/the-justices-conference/
  37. http://users.polisci.umn.edu/~trj/ConferenceJAPP.pdf
  38. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-court-deliberations
  39. https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx
  40. http://www.columbia.edu/~jrl2124/Fluidity_Final_All.pdf
  41. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096141704/supreme-court-opinion-process
  42. http://supremecourtopinions.wustl.edu/
  43. https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/
  44. https://empiricalscotus.com/2024/07/07/working-overtime/
  45. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/ranking-the-modern-chief-justices/
  46. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/writing-supreme-court-opinions
  47. https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/02/politics/john-roberts-assignment-power-trump-barrett
  48. https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/drafting-and-releasing-opinions/
  49. https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/
  50. https://www.history.com/articles/supreme-court-decision-cases
  51. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=clr
  52. https://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/law-histcom/mayrbks
  53. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3934&context=ndlr
  54. https://wythepedia.wm.edu/index.php/Reports_of_Sir_Edward_Coke
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rise-of-majority-rule-in-early-modern-britain-and-its-empire/introduction/D54C22707B646AF2FB9BD8DFF37FBA2C
  56. https://www.fjc.gov/history/legislation/landmark-legislation-judiciary-act-1789-0
  57. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/judiciary-act-1789-establishes-federal-courts
  58. https://supreme.justia.com/supreme-court-history/jay-court/
  59. https://supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-courts/jay-court-1789-1795/
  60. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp
  61. https://supreme.justia.com/justices/john-marshall/
  62. https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/leading-founders/john-marshall-expounder-the-constitution
  63. https://www.fjc.gov/history/cases/cases-that-shaped-the-federal-courts/marbury-v-madison
  64. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/
  65. https://civics.supremecourthistory.org/article/the-practice-of-dissent-in-the-early-court/
  66. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1
  67. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx
  68. https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/17/1/2/8098035
  69. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx
  70. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
  71. https://www.scotusblog.com/stat-pack-2025/
  72. https://nysba.org/6-to-3-the-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-conservative-super-majority/
  73. https://bluetogold.com/panels-and-precedents-a-mini-course-on-the-federal-circuit-courts/
  74. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts
  75. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/Rule35Final.pdf
  76. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/about-us-courts-appeals
  77. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4985&context=mlr
  78. https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/are-unpublished-opinions-inconsistent-right-access
  79. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/2023-2024-annual-review-of-the-fifth-1695151/
  80. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_00000035----000-_combined.html
  81. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_40
  82. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol82/iss4/9/
  83. https://ballotpedia.org/State_supreme_courts
  84. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6801&context=penn_law_review
  85. https://www.uscourts.gov/statistical-reports
  86. https://www.aca-europe.eu/seminars/2019_Dublin/UK.pdf
  87. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10121451/1/Thomas_UKSC%2520Report%2520of%2520UKSC%2520JCPC%2520Database%25202009-13%2520May2014.pdf
  88. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2020/07/majority-concurring-and-dissenting-decisions/?print=print
  89. https://www.scc-csc.ca/about-apropos/work-travail/review-retro/2024/
  90. https://aspercentre.ca/the-state-is-not-immune-the-supreme-court-affirms-that-crown-can-be-held-liable-in-damages-for-unconstitutional-laws/
  91. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2015/02/high-court-in-closer-agreement--new-statistics
  92. https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/27597-high-court-has-most-divided-year-as-unanimous-judgements-plunge
  93. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf
  94. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/vol124_consensus_to_collegiality.pdf
  95. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/towering-judges/civil-law-tradition-the-pinochet-constitution-and-judge-eugenio-valenzuela/359633C5DF1FDE5E38BD75F6FC889F88
  96. https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/04-15.pdf
  97. https://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1332&context=alea
  98. http://www.courdecassation.fr/en/about-court/tomorrow/open-data-judicial-decisions
  99. https://www.bdl-ip.com/ja/2021-04-open-data-future-for-court-rulings-in-france/
  100. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/understand-stare-decisis/
  101. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-7-2-1/ALDE_00001187/
  102. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-doctrine-of-stare-decisis/
  103. https://courtslaw.jotwell.com/construing-precedent/
  104. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/precedent-reliance-and-dobbs/
  105. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1201&context=faculty_publications
  106. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-81-4-Leval.pdf
  107. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/aggregate-dynamics-of-lower-court-responses-to-the-us-supreme-court/1A67714120E06C89A0A23A50306C8B83
  108. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstreams/641f45dc-4896-4110-b523-765a630edc4d/download
  109. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education
  110. https://www.oah.org/tah/february-3/the-troubled-history-of-american-education-after-the-brown-decision/
  111. https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/07/30/can-congress-overturn-supreme-court-rulings
  112. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1607636
  113. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3483694-five-times-congress-overrode-the-supreme-court/
  114. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/how-courts-do-and-dont-respond-to-statutory-overrides/
  115. https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforcement-judicial-orders
  116. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_21
  117. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-courts-can-do-if-trump-administration-defies-court-orders
  118. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/worcester-v-georgia-2/
  119. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/
  120. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/empirical-scotus-changes-are-afoot-5-4-decisions-during-october-term-2018/
  121. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/01/flip-flopping-politicians-and-judges-survey-of-motivated-reasoning-and-merits-bias.html
  122. https://securities.stanford.edu/academic-articles/20240320-quantifying-the-significance-of-circuit-splits-in-petitions-for-certiorari.pdf
  123. https://www.californialawreview.org/print/cert-splits
  124. https://empiricalscotus.com/2024/04/01/charting-the-justices-decisions-cutting-across-ideological-lines/
  125. https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/02/69-Stan-L-Rev-795.pdf
  126. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/10/far-right-supreme-court-legal-vitilantism
  127. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision
  128. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/7/8/23784320/supreme-court-2022-term-affirmative-action-religion-voting-rights-abortion
  129. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-killed-affirmative-action/
  130. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/supreme-court-affirmative-action-dobbs-student-debt-black-women-1234782839/
  131. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/originalism-carries-on
  132. https://societyfortheruleoflaw.org/gregg-nunziata-the-conservative-legal-movement-got-everything-it-wanted-it-could-lose-it-all/
  133. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
  134. https://news.gallup.com/poll/695759/new-high-say-supreme-court-too-conservative.aspx
  135. https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx
  136. https://news.gallup.com/poll/693230/record-party-gaps-job-approval-supreme-court-congress.aspx
  137. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/03/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low/
  138. https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=jrge
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10923515/
  140. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/white-papers/on-originalism-in-constitutional-interpretation
  141. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
  142. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3248&context=facpub
  143. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMxNZUh7QTA
  144. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/lawfacpub/200/
  145. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2012/12/11/scalia-favors-enduring-not-living-constitution
  146. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/context/facpub/article/3507/viewcontent/SSRN_id4179654.pdf
  147. https://empiricalscotus.com/2018/01/03/scotus-textualism/
  148. https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/textualisms-defining-moment/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.