Types of Supreme Court Opinions

Why This Matters

When the Supreme Court decides a case, the type of opinion issued tells you as much about the ruling's significance as the decision itself. You're being tested on more than just knowing that a majority opinion exists—you need to understand how precedent gets established, why justices write separately even when they agree, and what happens when the Court can't reach consensus. These distinctions appear constantly in AP Government FRQs, especially when you're asked to analyze landmark cases or explain how judicial decisions shape policy.

The opinions justices write reveal the inner workings of judicial review, constitutional interpretation, and the Court's role in the system of checks and balances. A dissent today can become tomorrow's majority opinion—that's not trivia, it's how constitutional law evolves. Don't just memorize the seven opinion types; know what each one signals about the Court's unity, the strength of the precedent, and the likelihood that a ruling might be revisited.

---

Opinions That Establish Binding Precedent

When the Court speaks with authority, lower courts must follow. These opinion types create the legal rules that govern future cases.

Majority Opinion

• Binding precedent for all lower courts—this is the official ruling that becomes "the law of the land" under stare decisis
• Requires agreement from more than half of participating justices on both the outcome and the legal reasoning
• Primary source for understanding constitutional interpretation—when an FRQ asks about a landmark case's impact, you're analyzing the majority opinion

Per Curiam Opinion

• Unsigned opinion representing the Court as a whole—signals strong consensus without individual attribution
• Typically used for straightforward cases or emergency matters where speed matters more than extensive analysis
• Carries full precedential weight despite being brief—Bush v. Gore (2000) was per curiam yet profoundly consequential

---

Opinions That Add Perspective Without Changing Outcomes

These opinions don't alter the ruling but shape how we understand it—and often influence future legal development.

Concurring Opinion

• Agrees with the outcome but offers different reasoning—justices use these to propose alternative constitutional theories
• Can narrow or expand the majority's implications by emphasizing specific facts or legal principles
• Watch for "concurring in judgment"—this means agreement on the result only, signaling deeper disagreement on reasoning

Dissenting Opinion

• Disagrees with both the outcome and reasoning—represents the losing side's strongest arguments
• Can become future majority positions—Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) foreshadowed Brown v. Board (1954)
• Signals constitutional questions remain unsettled—strong dissents often invite future litigation and legislative responses

---

Opinions That Create Ambiguity

When the Court can't reach consensus, the resulting opinions have weaker precedential value and can complicate legal interpretation.

Plurality Opinion

• Largest group of justices, but fewer than a majority—no single reasoning commands Court-wide support
• Creates unclear precedent because lower courts must determine which parts of the reasoning to follow
• Often occurs in divisive cases involving contested constitutional questions like affirmative action or abortion regulations

Seriatim Opinions

• Each justice writes a separate opinion—a historical practice rarely used today
• Provides maximum transparency into individual judicial reasoning but no unified precedent
• Common in early Court history under Chief Justice John Jay; Chief Justice John Marshall ended this practice to strengthen judicial authority

---

Opinions for Expedited or Routine Matters

Not every case requires extensive analysis. These opinion types allow the Court to manage its docket efficiently.

Memorandum Opinion

• Brief, often unsigned ruling addressing straightforward legal issues without detailed analysis
• Used when the legal answer is clear or when the Court denies certiorari with a brief explanation
• Still carries legal significance for the specific parties involved, even if it doesn't elaborate constitutional principles

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two opinion types establish binding precedent for lower courts, and what distinguishes them from each other?

2. A justice agrees that the defendant should win but believes the majority relied on the wrong constitutional provision. What type of opinion would this justice write, and why does it matter for future cases?

3. Compare and contrast plurality opinions and majority opinions—why does the distinction affect how lower courts apply the ruling?

4. If an FRQ asks you to explain how constitutional interpretation can change over time, which opinion type provides the best evidence that today's minority view can become tomorrow's law? Give a historical example.

5. The Court issues an unsigned, brief opinion in an emergency election case. What type of opinion is this, and what does the format signal about the justices' level of agreement?