How to Read a U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

How to Read a U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Social Education 77(1), pp 32–35 ©2013 National Council for the Social Studies Looking at the Law How to Read a U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Tiffany Middleton Reading U.S. Supreme Court opinions can be intimidating. Yet, in the digital age, it Brown, for example, was a unanimous has never been easier to access them. The average opinion is about 4,750 words, and opinion with all nine justices agreeing is one of approximately 75 issued by the Court each year. It might be reassuring to on the decision and the legal rationale. know that opinions contain similar parts and tend to follow a similar format. There When more than half of the justices agree are also useful key words to identify amid the pages of a PDF or HTML text to on the same result and the rationale, the help focus reading. Here, “Looking at the Law” offers a basic guide for reading and Court issues a majority opinion. Tinker v. analyzing these important primary legal documents. Des Moines, for example, was a majority opinion, with seven justices ruling for the Step 1: Identify the Parts. syllabus with a heading: “Opinion of the petitioner, Tinker, and agreeing with the Typically, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion Court,” or will announce a particular rationale, and two justices not in agree- document is comprised of one or more, justice delivering the opinion for the ment with the majority.4 or all, of the following: Court. Typically, one justice is identi- Other times, there is no majority, but fied as the author of the main opinion, as a plurality, so the Court issues a plural- Syllabus in “Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered ity opinion. The 2008 case concerning The syllabus appears first, before the the opinion of the Court,” from Brown v. voter identification, Crawford v. Marion main opinion. It is generally identified Board of Education.2 This practice origi- County Election Board, was a plurality by a heading. The syllabus is not part of nated in the early nineteenth century with decision with six justices agreeing on the the official opinion, though it is often Chief Justice John Marshall, who felt decision, but disagreeing on the legal printed in the opinion document; but is it presented a unified front, and would rationale. Three justices agreed on one rather, a summary added by the Court ultimately bolster the Court’s prestige. rationale, while three justices agreed on to help the reader better understand the Per curiam opinions, however, do another. Three other justices did not case and the decision. The syllabus may not identify any authors, and are sim- agree with the decision. be several pages long, and outlines the ply, opinions of the Court. Latin for “by facts of the case and the path that the case the court,” per curiam opinions tend to Concurring and Dissenting Opinions has taken to get to the Supreme Court. be shorter in length, and address ques- Often, there are multiple opinions The syllabus was particularly significant tions where individually authored opin- included in the opinion document in the recent health care ruling.1 It was, ions may not be the most effective. Bush because the justices are not in agree- for many media outlets, the quickest v. Gore, for example, was a per curiam ment. These are set apart from the rest summary of breaking news available opinion issued to resolve the 2000 presi- of the opinion with specific identifying for public reporting. The syllabus often dential election dispute.3 headings. The justices who agree with concludes with a summary of which jus- In legal terms, the opinion announces the result of the main opinion, or the tice authored the main opinion, which a decision and provides an explanation resolution of the dispute between the justices joined in the main opinion, and by articulating the legal rationale that the two parties, but base their decision on a which justices might have issued concur- justices relied upon. The main opinion different rationale may issue one or more ring or dissenting opinions. may take different forms, depending on concurring opinion(s). Likewise, justices how the justices decide certain issues. who disagree with the main opinion in Main Opinion Sometimes all of the justices agree on both result and legal rationale may issue Following the syllabus is the main opin- both the result and the legal rationale one or more dissenting opinion(s). The ion. This is the Court’s official decision for their decision. The Court, in these opinion in the 2011 free speech case, in the case. It is often set apart from the cases, issues one unanimous opinion. Snyder v. Phelps, for example, includes Social Education 32 both a concurring and dissenting opin- date. Another important element is the U.S. District Court for the District of ion.5 Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with case name, which identifies the parties Kansas. Bush v. Gore notes “on writ of the decision, but not the rationale, so involved in the case. Generally, the party certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court.” he issued a concurring opinion. Justice listed first is the petitioner, or party peti- This means that the case was being Samuel Alito, however, disagreed with tioning, or suing, the court for judgment reviewed for the Florida Supreme Court. both the decision and the rationale, and against the other party, known as the Finally, just as opinions have com- issued a dissenting opinion. respondent. For example, the name of the monalities in their openings, they also case Snyder v. Phelps originates from the have commonalities in closings. Main Step 2: Understand the Formal fact that Albert Snyder filed suit against opinions end with the phrase, “It is so Elements Fred Phelps, Sr. The case name U.S. v. ordered.” This is meant to reinforce Regardless of which, or how many, parts Jones denotes that the United States gov- the notion that this decision is coming comprise the opinion, they will share ernment filed suit against Antoine Jones.6 from the Court, not an individual jus- several formal elements. Headings, also The heading might also include an tice, despite who might be identified in known as the “caption,” typically include explanation of where the case came from the opinion documents, and shall be the Court term in which the opinion was before reaching the Court. Often, there is executed or enforced. announced. Supreme Court terms begin a note about certiorari, a Latin word for in October of each calendar year, and “to be informed of,” and in legal terms, an Step 3: Read Purposefully extend into the summer of the following order by which a higher court reviews the When reading an opinion, it is important year. So a decision announced in March decision of a lower court. For example, to focus on a few “big picture” takeaways: 2013 would be part of the 2012 Term, the opinion in Brown notes “appeal from since the term began in October 2012. the United States District Court for the Facts Opinions also include the case docket District of Kansas.” That means the case Pinpoint the stated facts of the case, or number, argument dates, and decision is being reviewed upon appeal from the the “story” or narrative—who, what, Before the Opinion: Three Ways that a Case Reaches the U.S. Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction decision from the district court, the case may be heard in the next The first, and least common, way that a case reaches the Supreme higher court in the federal system, part of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Court is when the case falls under the Court’s original jurisdiction. If parties are unhappy with the resolution in the circuit’s Court of The Court is able to hear the case directly. It does not need to go Appeals, they may appeal to the Supreme Court. Parties seeking to through another court first, it simply goes to the Supreme Court. appeal a decision of a circuit court may petition the Court for a writ These types of cases are set forth by Article III of the Constitution, of certiorari, an order by which a higher court reviews the decision and other congressional acts—the Federal Judiciary Act, for of a lower court. If the Court grants the petition, then the case is example. The Supreme Court is the only court able to hear cases scheduled for future argument. involving disputes between different states. Other original Unlike other courts, the Supreme Court is able to decide which jurisdiction examples include cases where one or more states is cases it will hear on appeal. The Court receives approximately the plaintiff in the case—suing another party, or cases where the 10,000 petitions for certiorari each term, but only hears a fraction— United States government is suing another state. These cases are fewer than 100. The case is only heard if four of the nine justices rare, and may appear once or twice during any term. agree that there is an important need for review. If the case is denied certiorari, then the decision of the lower court is final. Writ of Certiorari The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court is State Supreme Courts on appeal from another lower federal court. The United States Another way, also common, that a case reaches the U.S. Supreme is divided into 94 different geographic federal judicial districts— Court is through review of a state supreme court decision. Each including at least one district in each state, Washington, D.C., and state has its own supreme court that is the final authority on all Puerto Rico.
Recommended publications
  • M Master R Proje Ect Bib Bliogr Raphy
    An Index of Virginia Printing www.indexvirginiaprinting.org Master Project Bibliography Listed alphabetically by short citation used in entrry notes according to source type. Principal Bibliographies Brigham: Clarence S. Brigham, History and Bibliography of American Newsppapers, 16900-1820: including Additions and Corrections, 1961. (Hamden [Conn.]: Archon Books, 1962); annotated copy in Reading Room, American Antiquarian Society. Cappon: Lester J. Cappon, comp. Virginia Newspapers, 1821-1935: A Biblioggraphy with Historical Introduction and Notes. The University of Virginia Institute for Research in the Social Sciences Monograph, no. 22. (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1936). Evans: Charles Evans, American Bibliography: A Chronological Dictionary of All Books, Pamphlets, and Periodical Publications Printed in the United States of America from the Genesis of Printing in 1639 down to and including the Year 1820: With Bibliographical and Biographical Notes. 14 vols. (Chicago: Privately printed by Blakely Press, 1903-1959), annotated copy in Reading Room, American Antiquarian Society. Gregory: Winifred Gregory, ed. American Newspapers, 1821-1936: A Union List of Files Available in the United States and Canada. (New York: Bibliographic Society of America, 1937). Hummel, Southeastern Broadsides. Ray O. Hummel, Jr., ed. Southeastern Broadsides Before 1877: A Bibliography. Virginia State Library Publications, no. 33. (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1971). Hummel, Virginia Broadsides. Ray O. Hummel, Jr., ed. More ViV rginia Broadsides Beforre 1877. Virginia State Library Publications, no. 39. (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1975). Shaw & Shoemaker: Ralph R. Shaw and Richard H. Shoemaker, comps. American Bibliography: A Preliminary Checklist for 1801-1819. 22 vols. (New York: Scarecrow Press, 1958-1966). Swem: Earle Gregg Swem, comp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court 2018‐2019 Topic Proposal
    The Supreme Court 2018‐2019 Topic Proposal Proposed to The NFHS Debate Topic Selection Committee August 2017 Proposed by: Dustin L. Rimmey Topeka High School Topeka, KS Page 1 of 1 Introduction Alexander Hamilton famously noted in the Federalist no. 78 “The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction of either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.” However, Hamilton could be no further from the truth. From the first decision in 1793 up to the most recent decision the Supreme Court of the United States has had a profound impact on the Constitution. Precedents created by Supreme Court decisions function as one of the most powerful governmental actions. Jonathan Bailey argues “those in the legal field treat Supreme Court decisions with a near‐religious reverence. They are relatively rare decisions passed down from on high that change the rules for everyone all across the country. They can bring clarity, major changes and new opportunities” (Bailey). For all of the power and awe that comes with the Supreme Court, Americans have little to know accurate knowledge about the land’s highest court. According to a 2015 survey released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center: 32% of Americans could not identify the Supreme Court as one of our three branches of government, 28% believe that Congress has full review over all Supreme Court decisions, and 25% believe the court could be eliminated entirely if it made too few popular decisions. Because so few Americans lack solid understanding of how the Supreme Court operates, now is the perfect time for our students to actively focus on the Supreme Court in their debate rounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Covering: Mutable Characteristics and Perceptions of Voice in the U.S
    TSE‐680 July 2016 “Covering: Mutable characteristics and perceptions of voice in the U.S. Supreme Court” Daniel L. Chen, Yosh Halberstam, and Alan Yu COVERING: MUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS AND PERCEPTIONS OF VOICE IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Daniel L. Chen, Yosh Halberstam, and Alan Yu∗ Abstract The emphasis on “fit” as a hiring criterion has raised the spectrum of a new form of subtle discrimination (Yoshino 1998; Bertrand and Duflo 2016). Under complete markets, correlations between employee characteristics and outcomes persist only if there exists animus for the marginal employer (Becker 1957), but who is the marginal employer for mutable characteristics? Using data on 1,901 U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments between 1998 and 2012, we document that voice-based snap judgments based on lawyers’ identical introductory sentences, “Mr. Chief Justice, (and) may it please the Court?”, predict court outcomes. The connection between vocal characteristics and court outcomes is specific only to perceptions of masculinity and not other characteristics, even when judgment is based on less than three seconds of exposure to a lawyer’s speech sample. Consistent with employers irrationally favoring lawyers with masculine voices, perceived masculinity is negatively correlated with winning and the neg- ative correlation is larger in more masculine-sounding industries. The first lawyer to speak is the main driver. Among these petitioners, males below median in masculinity are 7 percentage points more likely to win in the Supreme Court. Justices appointed by Democrats, but not Republicans, vote for less- masculine men. Female lawyers are also coached to be more masculine and women’s perceived femininity predict court outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Research Briefing Series
    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE ~ TUFTS UNIVERSITY STUDENT RESEARCH BRIEFING SERIES VOLUME III, ISSUE I SPRING 2014 THE SILENT MINORITY: AN EXAMINATION OF FEMALE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT DURING ORAL ARGUMENT CAROLINE HELEN HOWE The Student Research Briefing Series is designed to publish a broad range of topics in American Politics, Comparative Politics, Political Theory and Philosophy, and Interna- tional Relations. The briefings are intended to enhance student appreciation of student TABLE OF CONTENTS research completed in the Department of Political Science. In addition, the publication hopes to serve as outreach to interested undergraduates and prospective students consid- INTRODUCTION 4 ering a major in Political Science. This publication is student-produced and the research was conducted during Caroline’s undergraduate studies. To read The Silent Minority please visit http://ase.tufts.edu/polsci/studentresearch/SilentMinority.pdf. LITERATURE REVIEW 12 In The Silent Minority: An Examination of Female Justices of the Supreme Court During Oral Argument Howe seeks to recognize and substantiate the value of gender diversity on Supreme Court jurisprudence. She explores the impact of female Justices on oral ar- METHODOLOGY 35 gument from the behavior and treatment of the Justices to the content of their arguments. Howe found much of the behavior of female Justices on the Court exhibited their confi- dence and willingness to engage with their colleagues in a public and meaningful way. The presence of many “perspective statements” throughout the broad swath of gender BEHAVIOR & 45 cases also demonstrated that female Justices are unafraid to link their identity with their TREATMENT speech when it comes to gender cases.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is the Cover
    The McNair Scholars Journal of the University of Washington Volume XIII Autumn 2013 THE MCNAIR SCHOLARS JOURNAL University of Washington McNair Program Office of Minority Affairs & Diversity University of Washington 171 Mary Gates Hall Box 352803 Seattle, WA 98195-2803 [email protected] http://depts.washington.edu/uwmcnair/ The Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program operates as a part of TRiO Programs, which are funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Cover Photo by Merzamie Cagaitan, UW McNair Alumnus University of Washington McNair Program Staff Program Director Gabriel Gallardo, Ph.D. Associate Director Gene Kim, Ph.D. Program Coordinator Rosa Ramirez Graduate Student Advisors Brooke Cassell Raj Chetty McNair Scholars’ Research Mentors Dr. Brittany Brand, Earth and Space Sciences Dr. Eliot Brenowitz, Biology and Psychology Dr. Katherine Cummings, English Dr. Angela Ginorio, Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies; Psychology Dr. Ricardo Gomez, Information School Dr. Michelle Habell-Pallán, Women Studies Dr. Steve Herbert, Law, Societies, and Justice Dr. Jerald Herting, Sociology Dr. Nancy Hertzog, Educational Psychology Dr. Marketa Hnilova, Materials Science & Engineering Dr. Kimberly Hudson, School of Social Work Dr. Horacio O. de la Iglesia, Biology Dr. Hedwig Lee, Sociology Dr. Mary Lidstrom, Microbiology and Chemical Engineering Dr. Michelle S. Liu, English Dr. Ralf Luche, Psychology Dr. N. Cecilia Martinez-Gomez, Microbiology Dr. Devon G. Peña, American Ethnic Studies and Anthropology Dr. Carolyn Pinedo-Turnovsky, American Ethnic Studies Dr. Nicholas Poolos, Neurobiology and Behavior Dr. Fernando Resende, Environmental and Forest Sciences Dr. Sonnet Retman, American Ethnic Studies Dr. Natasha Rivers, Demography and Ecology Dr. Ileana M. Rodriguez-Silva, History Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Resources for Mother-Child Community Corrections
    RESOURCES FOR MOTHER-CHILD COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS By: Mary K. Shilton The Mother-Child Community Corrections Project International Community Corrections Association P.O. Box 1987 La Crosse, WI 54602 This project was supported by cooperative agreement 2000-DD-VX-0015 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Guide was developed with the assistance of The Mother-Child Community Corrections Project Team Judy Berman, Center for Effective Public Policy Karen Chapple, International Community Corrections Association Phyllis Modley, National Institute of Corrections Becki Ney, Center for Effective Public Policy Mary Shilton, International Community Corrections Association Richard A. Sutton, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP Karen Asphaug, First Judicial District, Hastings, MN Sandra Barnhill, Aid to Children of Imprisoned Mothers, Atlanta, GA Evvie Becker, Ph.D., Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C Carl C. Bell, M.D., Community Mental Health Council, Chicago, IL Barbara Bloom Ph.D. CSU, Dept. of Criminal Justice, Petaluma, CA Barbara Broderick, Arizona Supreme Court Admin. Office of the Courts, Phoenix, AZ Patsy L. Buida, M.S.W., Children’s Bureau, Washington, D.C. Sonia L. Burgos, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. Ellen Clark, Western Carolinians for Criminal Justice, Women at Risk program, Ashville, NC Stephanie S. Covington, Ph.D., Institute for Relational Development, La Jolla, CA Teresa Fabi, Kings County District Attorney’s Office, Brooklyn, NY Mindy Feldbaum, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Commerce Clause New Federalism in the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts: Dynamics of Culture Wars Constitutionalism, 1964-2012 ___
    COMMERCE CLAUSE NEW FEDERALISM IN THE REHNQUIST AND ROBERTS COURTS: DYNAMICS OF CULTURE WARS CONSTITUTIONALISM, 1964-2012 ______________________________ A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri ________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ________________________________ by ROGER E. ROBINSON Dr. Mark M. Carroll, Dissertation Supervisor December 2017 © Copyright by Roger E. Robinson 2017 All Rights Reserved The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled COMMERCE CLAUSE NEW FEDERALISM IN THE REHNQUIST AND ROBERTS COURTS: DYNAMICS OF CULTURE WARS CONSTITUTIONALISM, 1964-2012 presented by Roger Robinson, a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Mark M. Carroll, Associate Professor of History, Chair William B. Fisch, Professor Emeritus of Law Robert M. Collins, Professor Emeritus of History John L. Bullion, Professor Emeritus of History Catherine Rymph, Associate Professor of History DEDICATION On the home front, my wife, Mary Kay, helped me figure out that an academic career should be in my future after retiring from the Air Force. She’s been my biggest supporter, counselor, and editor even though the process has included a move, a new job, homeschooling, and the birth of two children in the interim. Equally patient and supportive have been my kids, Benjamin, Arianna, James, Isaac, Joseph, Abigail, and Levi, all of whom are very pleased that the project is now complete. This work, therefore is dedicated to my family without whose love and support I’d have never succeeded.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium Proceedings 2005
    Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium Proceedings 2005 Proceedings of a Symposium held on October 14, 2005 at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Martin Halbert (Editor) MetaScholar Initiative Robert W. Woodruff Library Emory University Atlanta, Georgia This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License Copyright Information: These proceedings are covered by the following Creative Commons License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 You are free to copy, distribute, and display this work under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. Specifically, you must state that the work was originally published in the Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium Proceedings 2005, and you must attribute the author(s). Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above. The above is a human-readable summary of the full license, which is available at the following URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode Publication and Cataloging Information: ISBN: 0-9772994-0-6 Editor: Martin Halbert Copy Editors: Carrie Finegan Katherine Skinner Publisher: MetaScholar Initiative
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Class Respondents ————
    No. 17-961 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— THEODORE H. FRANK, ET AL., Petitioners, v. PALOMA GAOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Respondents. ———— On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— BRIEF FOR CLASS RESPONDENTS ———— KASSRA P. NASSIRI JEFFREY A. LAMKEN Counsel of Record MICHAEL G. PATTILLO, JR. NASSIRI & JUNG LLP JAMES A. BARTA 47 Kearny St. WILLIAM J. COOPER Suite 700 MOLOLAMKEN LLP San Francisco, CA 94108 The Watergate, Suite 660 (415) 762-3100 600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 [email protected] Counsel for Class Respondents (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover) :,/621(3(635,17,1*&2,1&± ±:$6+,1*721'& MICHAEL ASCHENBRENER JUSTIN B. WEINER KAMBERLAW, LLC JORDAN A. RICE 201 Milwaukee St. MOLOLAMKEN LLP Suite 200 300 N. LaSalle St. Denver, CO 80206 Chicago, IL 60654 (303) 222-0281 (312) 450-6700 [email protected] QUESTION PRESENTED Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permits rep- resentatives to maintain a class action where so doing “is superior to other available methods for fairly and effi- ciently adjudicating the controversy,” and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that a settlement that binds class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The question pre- sented is: Whether, or in what circumstances, a class-action set- tlement that provides a cy pres award of class-action proceeds but no direct relief to class members comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and supports class certification.
    [Show full text]