 | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.(November 2020) |
| Legal and judicial opinions |
|---|
In law, a per curiamdecision or opinion (sometimes called an unsigned opinion) is one that is not authored by or attributed to a specific judge, but rather ascribed to the entire court or panel of judges who heard the case. [1] The term per curiam is Latin for 'by the court'. [2]
The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are generally not per curiam, with exceptions. [3] Their decisions more commonly take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices which are then joined in by other justices. [3] Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered per curiam decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as per curiam. [3] Per curiam decisions tend to be short. [3] In modern practice, they are most commonly used in summary decisions that the Court resolves without full argument and briefing. [4] The designation is stated at the beginning of the opinion. Single-line per curiam decisions are also issued without concurrence or dissent by a hung Supreme Court (a 4–4 decision), when the Court has a vacant seat.
The notable exceptions to the usual characteristics for a per curiam decision are the cases of New York Times Co. v. United States , Bush v. Gore , and Trump v. Anderson . Although they were per curiam, [5] each had multiple concurrences and dissents. [6] [7]
Examples include:
The per curiam practices of the individual United States Courts of Appeals vary by judicial circuit. The Second Circuit, for instance, issues its nonprecedential decisions as "summary orders" that do not designate an author but are also not labeled as per curiam opinions; occasionally, the court will issue precedential decisions with a per curiam designation. In the Third Circuit, by contrast, the majority of both precedential and nonprecedential decisions indicate the authoring judge, and the per curiam designation is generally, but not exclusively, reserved for dispositions on the court's pro se and summary action calendar.
The Supreme Court of California occasionally releases decisions in the name of "The Court" but they are not necessarily unanimous. Sometimes, they are accompanied by extensive concurring and dissenting opinions. [8]
The Supreme Court of Florida frequently releases death penalty opinions in a per curiam form, even if there are concurring and dissenting opinions to the majority. [9]
Many decisions of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, especially in the First and Second Judicial Departments, do not designate an author. Across the Departments, the per curiam designation is used in attorney disciplinary decisions. [10]
The Supreme Court of Canada uses the term "The Court" instead of per curiam. The practice began around 1979 by Chief Justice Laskin, borrowing from the US Supreme Court practice of anonymizing certain unanimous decisions. [11]
However, unlike US courts, which use per curiam primarily for uncontroversial cases, the Supreme Court tends to attribute decisions to "The Court" in important and controversial cases, to emphasize that the Court is speaking with one voice. [12] [13]
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, contending that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately. On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm." Oral arguments were scheduled for December 11.
A plurality decision is a court decision in which no opinion received the support of a majority of the judges.
Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.
Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have the option of releasing reasons for a unanimous decision anonymously by simply attributing the judgment to "The Court". The practice began around 1979 by Chief Justice Bora Laskin, borrowing from the US Supreme Court practice of anonymizing certain unanimous decisions. Unlike in the US, which uses it primarily for uncontroversial cases, in Canada, it is used almost always for important and controversial cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down twelve per curiam opinions during its 2002 term, which began October 7, 2002 and concluded October 5, 2003.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.
A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a judicial panel in the course of resolving a legal dispute, providing the decision reached to resolve the dispute, and usually indicating the facts which led to the dispute and an analysis of the law used to arrive at the decision.
United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the president, as head of the executive branch, has exclusive power to recognize foreign nations; as such, Congress may not require the State Department to indicate in passports that Jerusalem is part of Israel.
Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.
Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.
Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down seven per curiam opinions during its 2018 term, which began October 1, 2018, and concluded October 6, 2019.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down five per curiam opinions during its 2023 term, which began October 2, 2023, and concluded on October 6, 2024.
Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1946), was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Florida circuit court which held the Miami Herald in contempt of court for publishing a scathing publication of that court was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The unanimous court reversed the judgement of the Supreme Court of Florida which affirmed the contempt of court charge.
