0
Yes, sort of. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote an opinion concurring in judgment in Ex Parte Milligan,71 US 2 (1866), but dissenting in part on certain points of the opinion of the Court that were important general considerations but somewhat extraneous to the judgment.
The basis of the disagreement was whether Congress had the right to pass War laws that temporarily overrode constitutional due process protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Justice Davis believed Congress had to comply with the Constitution; Chief Justice Chase believed Congress had the right to pass temporary laws that suspended certain civil rights in the interest of the country. Chase viewed this as an extension of Congress' war powers under Article I.
They also disagreed about whether the State of Indiana could properly be considered part of the "rebellion." Justice Davis asserted that there were no battles being fought in the state at the time, and that the State lay outside the war zone; Chief Justice Chase countered that Indiana had been invaded by rebel forces and was under military occupation, making it appropriate for the Congressional Act to apply within the State.
Chief Justice Chase was joined by Justices Wayne, Swayne, and Miller.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What else can I help you with?
What is a concurring opinion?
In US Supreme Court decisions, a concurring opinion is an opinion by one or more justices which agrees with the result the majority opinion reached but either for additional or other legal reasons which the majority opinion rests on. The writer of a concurring opinion is counted within the majority of justices who agreed on the ultimate result of the case, but disagrees in some way with the legal reasoning of the other justices. The concurring opinion sets forth that justice's own reasoning. In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.
An opinion written by a Supreme Court justice who agrees with a case but does not agree with its legal logic is called a?
concurring opinion
What is the name given to a written decision by Supreme Court Justices that while they agree with the final outcome of the case they do not agree with the reasoning behind the final outcome?
It is a concurring opinion. If there is no disagreement with the basis, the justice is included in the "majority opinion." In some cases, concurring opinions can become plurality decisions.
What US Supreme Court ruling held military tribunals could not try civilians when civilian courts were open?
Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866)"Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their judicial functions, had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offense, a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State nor a prisoner of war, nor a person in the military or naval service. And Congress could not invest them with any such power."Ex Parte Milligan case of 1866
What do one or more justices write when they disagree with the majority?
A Justice may write a dissenting opinion if he or she votes against the majority and wants to record his or her legal reasoning for consideration in future cases. Dissenting opinions, although written in opposition to the majority, or Court Opinion, may be cited as precedents in future litigation. An opinion that agrees with the decision in the case (although not necessarily the reasoning) is called a concurringopinion.For more information on opinions of the Court, see Related Questions, below.
What is the concurring opinion in Loving v. Virginia?
In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the concurring opinion was written by Justice Potter Stewart. He agreed with the majority's ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law was unconstitutional but wrote a separate concurrence to emphasize that the freedom to marry was a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He argued that the Constitution prohibits interracial marriage restrictions just as it forbids measures that discriminate based on race.
When a justice agrees with majoritys opinion but for different reasons this is called?
When a justice agrees with the majority's opinion but for different reasons, it is called a concurring opinion. This allows the justice to express their own reasoning and perspective on the case while still aligning with the overall decision of the majority. Concurring opinions can provide additional insights or highlight specific legal principles that the justice believes are important.
What is a justice writes this when he or she agrees with the majority opinion but for a different reason?
A justice who agrees with the majority opinion but for different reasons writes a "concurring opinion." This type of opinion allows the justice to express their unique reasoning or perspective on the case, which may highlight different legal principles or considerations that support the same outcome. Concurring opinions can provide additional insights into the court's decision and may influence future cases.
How do a concurring opinion and a unanimous opinion differ?
Majority opinion - Also called the "Opinion of the Court," this is the official verdict in the case that represents the vote of the majority of justicesDissenting opinion - An opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majorityConcurring opinion - An opinion that agrees with the decision but may disagree with the some of the reasoning behind the Court opinion, or may elaborate on a point made or introduce further relevant informationThe most important type is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is, as the name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case. In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or more Justices have recused themselves from a given decision. The majority opinion is important because it defines the precedent that all future courts hearing a similar case should follow.Majority opinions are sometimes accompanied by concurring opinions. Concurring opinions are written by individual Justices in the majority. These opinions agree with the majority opinion, but may stress a different point of law. Sometimes, concurring opinions will agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason altogether.Opinions written by justices not in the majority are known as dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because they provide insight into how the Court reached its decision.the statement written to explain why the decision was made (GradPoint)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
When the supreme court rules on a case how many opinions might be written to explain the verdict?
There is no mandated limit; however, the practical limit would be nine -- one for each member of the Court. Only one opinion may be submitted as the official opinion of the Court; however, each justice is free to write a dissenting or concurring (or dissenting in part and concurring in part) opinion as part of the legal record. While concurring and dissenting opinions are unenforceable, they may be cited as precedent in future cases and sometimes become more influential than the original opinion of the Court.
Was Benjamin Butler part of Ex Parte Milligan case?
Yes, Benjamin "the Beast" Butler, then a Massachusetts lawyer and state legislator, argued the US government's case before the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866). He is credited with creating the government strategy for the respondent, the United States, along with US Attorney General Henry Stanbery and James Speed.Butler claimed the President had unlimited power during war, and was quoted as saying, "He is the sole judge of the exigencies, necessities, and duties of the occasion, their extent and duration."Milligan prevailed in this case.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
When a justices agrees with the majority decision but for defferinf reason he or she might write a what?
When a justice agrees with the majority decision but for different reasons, they might write a concurring opinion. This opinion allows the justice to express their individual reasoning or legal rationale for supporting the outcome, which may differ from that of the majority. Concurring opinions can provide additional insights and perspectives on the case, contributing to the broader legal discourse.
