Photo: Michael/Adobe Stock


While Supreme Court concurrences have not received the scholarly focus comparable to that given to dissenting opinions in, for example, Melvin Urofsky’s Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue, they merit equal attention. The significance of concurrences warrants close examination; as with dissents, they constitute, for both constitutional and statutory issues, fundamental components in the ongoing development of our juridical tradition.

A concurrence might modify or limit a decision, erode the forcefulness of a majority decision or dilute its persuasiveness. One might provide an alternative theory to support the majority ruling or an alternative interpretation of it, frequently by emphasizing (or de-emphasizing) a particular aspect of a decision. When no opinion garners a majority, a concurrence allows a conclusive judgment to emerge or may limit the reach of the position a plurality has taken.

Some Examples