Britannica Sources used in this answer

How can a justice write a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court case?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

A person ascends the steps of the west facade of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., with its tall columns and a round fountain in the foreground. — Major Supreme Court Cases from the 2025–26 Term The west facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building, Washington, D.C.

A Supreme Court justice may write a concurring opinion as part of the Court’s decision-making process. After the justices vote on the merits of a case, the Court issues an official written decision. During this stage, drafts of all opinions are circulated among the justices for review.1

Any justice may choose to concur with the Court's decision, either in full or in part. A justice might write a concurring opinion to agree with the majority’s judgment while offering a different legal rationale or to emphasize specific points that they believe were not sufficiently addressed in the majority opinion. For example, a justice may agree with the final outcome of a case but disagree with the majority's reasoning or argue that the Court went further than necessary to resolve the matter.12

By tradition, these formal opinions serve to justify the Court's decisions, and they provide a mechanism for justices to express their individual legal perspectives while participating in the final ruling.1