Fragmented Supreme Court majorities complicate lower courts’ interpretation of rulings

Evidence

Particularly crucial are the negotiations over the opinion of the Court, because the justice assigned the opinion must craft an opinion that can gain the support of five justices. Often an opinion goes through several drafts before it is accepted. Sometimes deep-seated divisions prevent a majority from coalescing behind a single opinion. … When no opinion commands a majority of the Court—and this has become increasingly common—it complicates the efforts of lower court judges to determine the exact meaning of the Court’s ruling. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1570

Particularly crucial are the negotiations over the opinion of the Court, because the justice assigned the opinion must craft an opinion that can gain the support of five justices. Often an opinion goes through several drafts before it is accepted. Sometimes deep-seated divisions prevent a majority of justices from coalescing behind a single opinion. In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, for example, a majority of five justices upheld various state restrictions on abortions, but Justices Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O’Connor refused to join Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion and filed separate concurring opinions. When no opinion commands a majority of the Court—and this has become increasingly common—it complicates the efforts of lower court judges to determine the exact meaning of the Court’s ruling. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 948

Categorization

• XREF: Ties to ch16/71 notes about how the Court’s docket control and cert process produce opinions; also relates to the general question of how doctrine forms when no single opinion commands a majority. — connects to: Supreme Court decisions both settle disputes and announce future legal standards — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1572; Court hierarchies bind lower courts to higher courts’ rulings — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 257; Lower federal courts shape even the most controversial cases before Supreme Court review. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 383 (+9 more)
• DEFINE: Illustrates what a plurality opinion is (no single opinion commanding a majority) through the Webster example.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1570; G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 948

Broader Connections

• Vague judicial mandates expand lower judges’ discretion to limit rulings #complicates (0.90) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3188
• A binding precedent obliges courts to follow it or distinguish it. #expands (0.80) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 102