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.
Supreme Court decisions are referred to as "opinions." When the Court issues a ruling, it typically releases a majority opinion, which explains the reasoning behind the decision, as well as any concurring opinions from justices who agree with the outcome but may have different reasoning. Dissenting opinions are also published, expressing the views of justices who disagree with the majority. Collectively, these opinions form the legal precedent that guides future cases.
The Supreme Court must have a simple majority to render a decision in a case.
For a majority ruling on the Supreme Court, a minimum of five out of the nine justices must agree. This is because a majority decision requires more than half of the justices to support a particular outcome or opinion. It is necessary to have a majority in order to establish a binding decision for the Court.
For the U.S. Supreme Court to decide a case, a majority of the justices must agree on the outcome. Since there are nine justices, at least five must concur for a decision to be rendered. In cases where the justices are evenly divided, such as a 4-4 split, the lower court's decision is upheld without setting a national precedent.
It requires the vote of at least four of the nine US Supreme Court justices to grant a petition for writ of certiorari. If four Justices agree, the Supreme Court will accept the case. This is referred to as the "Rule of Four."
The willingness of the government and the Exutive Branch to enforce that decision.
After all th opinions have been written and finalized, the justices announced their final decisions. The decisions are from the majority vote of the justices
No. The Supreme Court, like all courts, is immune from lawsuits. If they weren't, people would be suing constantly (someone is always unhappy with the outcome of a case), which would interfere with the justices' ability to make an impartial decision. There are enough obstacles standing in the way of impartiality already.
Concurrent opinion refers to a situation in which multiple judges or justices agree with the outcome of a case but provide separate reasons for their decision. While they share the same conclusion, each judge may emphasize different legal principles or interpretations in their written opinions. This can offer a broader understanding of the legal reasoning behind a ruling. Concurrent opinions are often found in appellate court decisions, including those from the Supreme Court.
the principle of judicial review was established
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.
Brown v. Board of education