Under the English legal traditions in effect at the time of American independence, appellate courts announced case outcomes through the separate opinions of each participating judge. This practice of issuing separate or “seriatim” opinions remains common in England today.
Consistent with its legal ancestry, the Supreme Court initially adopted seriatim opinions as an accepted way of announcing decisions. Chief Justice John Marshall ended the practice. When Marshall took command of the Court in 1801, the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of government, and because of the Jeffersonian electoral victories of 1800, it was the only branch remaining under Federalist control. Marshall was committed to building the Court into a coequal institution. He saw the termination of seriatim opinions as one step toward achieving that goal. Marshall reasoned that for the Court to grow in stature, it must speak with one voice rather than many. He, therefore, adopted the practice of issuing a single opinion announcing the ruling of the Court, a change vigorously criticized by Thomas Jefferson.
Some contemporary observers see an erosion in the majority opinion procedure. Since the mid‐1940s there has been a dramatic increase in concurring and dissenting opinions and occasionally the Court has almost reverted back to the days of seriatim opinions. For example, in the important Pentagon Papers case of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) and the capital punishment case of Furman v. Georgia (1972), each of the nine justices issued individual opinions.
See also Opinions, Assignment and Writing of.
— Thomas G. Walker
