A dissenting opinion is written when a justice disagrees with the majority opinion (which carries the force of law). If a justice is writing a dissenting opinion, that means he or she voted with the minority group, and wants to explain the reason why he or she disagrees with the official Opinion of the Court. Dissenting opinions may be cited, but are not enforceable.
dissenting
Precedent precedentprecedent
It stands for "Justices". If it's a single "J" it means it's the opinion of one Justice. If there is a list of more than one Justice followed by a comma and "JJ" it's just a shorthand way of saying "Justices". If one Justice filed a dissent to a decision it might read "Thomas, J. filed a dissenting opinion.", meaning only Clarence Thomas dissented. If it read "Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, JJ. filed a dissenting opinion." then it means the four of them filed the dissenting opinion together. That way they don't have to type "Thomas, J., Scalia, J., Roberts, J. and Alito, J. filed a dissenting opinion."
You can take a look at the opinions at the link below.Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinionJustice Alito wrote a concurring opinion in which Justice Kennedy joinedJustice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter and Ginsberg joinedJustice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part
Precedent
Precedent
Precedent
concurring judgment A concurring judgment is one in which the reasoning is different, but not the end result. (A dissenting judgment, however, is one that differs in the result from that of the majority.)
A dissenting opinion is written when a justice disagrees with the majority opinion (which carries the force of law). If a justice is writing a dissenting opinion, that means he or she voted with the minority group, and wants to explain the reason why he or she disagrees with the official Opinion of the Court. Dissenting opinions may be cited, but are not enforceable.
The term "minority opinion" is a bit unorthodox, considering those who vote against the majority may not be unified in their reasoning. When a Supreme Court justice wants to express disagreement with the opinion of the Court (usually the majority), he or she may write a dissenting opinion. It is not necessary for the dissenting justice to agree with anyone else on the Court.
The term "minority opinion" is a bit unorthodox, considering those who vote against the majority may not be unified in their reasoning. When a Supreme Court justice wants to express disagreement with the opinion of the Court (usually the majority), he or she may write a dissenting opinion. It is not necessary for the dissenting justice to agree with anyone else on the Court. No one uses the term "minority opinion."
Dissenting means that for one reason or another a judge in an appellate or a justice in a Supreme Court case disagrees with the decision of the majority of the other judges. The justice or justices dissenting will usually write a dissenting opinon to go along with the main court opinion. The dissenting opinion will state reasons why the dissenting justices disagree with the majority decision.
Justice Black's reference to Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. in his opinion in the case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. was to highlight the distinction between protected peaceful boycotts and unlawful conduct that seeks to coerce individuals through violence or threats. In Giboney, the Supreme Court held that peaceful labor picketing is protected by the First Amendment, but coercive conduct that interferes with the rights of others is not. Justice Black invoked this case to clarify the limits of free speech and assembly in the context of boycotts and protests.
dissenting
Dissenting opinionDissenting Opinion
A US Supreme Court justice who disagrees with the majority opinion writes a dissenting opinion, explaining why he or she disagrees with the majority.