Plurality decision

A plurality decision is a court decision in which no opinion received the support of a majority of the judges.

A plurality opinion is the judicial opinion or opinions which received the most support among those opinions which supported the plurality decision. The plurality opinion did not receive the support of more than half the justices, but still received more support than any other opinion, excluding those justices dissenting from the holding of the court.

By country

United States

In Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), the Supreme Court of the United States explained how the holding of a case should be viewed where there is no majority supporting the rationale of any opinion: "When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds."^[1]

That requires lower courts to look at all opinions to determine which is the most narrow compared to others. This opinion will be called the controlling opinion, and can be a mere concurrence, not the plurality.^[2]

The Marks Rule has raised the following schools of thought regarding the appropriate basis for determining the holding in such fractured cases: (a) the narrowest analysis essential to the result derived from a combination of all concurring opinions,^[3] (b) the concurring opinion offering the narrowest rationale,^[4] or (c) only those parts of the concurring opinions which overlap and arrive at the same result. For example, if one follows the first interpretation, then the holding in the case should be viewed as the narrowest rationale supported by all of the concurring opinions read together as though it were a single majority opinion, and where there is a conflict, the opinion based on the narrowest ground governs. Followers of the second rationale would find the concurring opinion offering the narrowest analysis to be the holding. Whereas, under the third interpretation, only the rationale(s) common to all concurring opinions which arrive at the same result(s) (and to the exclusion of all other rationales) is considered the holding.

A good example of a plurality opinion can be found in the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In considering whether Indiana's voter identification law passed constitutional muster, three justices believed the proper analysis was to apply the balancing approach laid down in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983). Three other justices agreed with the outcome of the Anderson approach, but believed the proper analysis was to apply the rule in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), which "forged Anderson's amorphous 'flexible standard' into something resembling an administrable rule". Regardless of the approach used, a reading of the opinions together results in a holding that "neutral, nondiscriminatory regulation of voting procedure" is constitutional so long as the burden imposed by the regulation is minimal or not severe.

See also

• Plurality (voting)

References

1. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
2. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/153/case.html Gregg v. Georgia (1976) "the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds"
3. Pedcor Mgmt. Co. Welfare Benefit Plan v. Nations Pers. of Tex., Inc., 343 F.3d 355, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2003)
4. Horn v. Thoratec Corp., 376 F.3d 163, 175-76 (3d Cir. 2004)

Further reading

• Berry, Melissa M.; Kochan, Donald J.; Parlow, Matthew J. (2008). "Much ado about pluralities: Pride and precedent amidst the cacophony of concurrences, and re-percolation after Rapanos". Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law. 15 (2): 299–354. SSRN 1017992.
• Bloom, James A. (2008). "Plurality and precedence: Judicial reasoning, lower courts, and the meaning of United States v. Winstar Corp.". Washington University Law Review. 85 (6): 1373–1417. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Cacace, Joseph M. (2007). "Plurality decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States: A reexamination of the Marks doctrine after Rapanos v. United States" (PDF). Suffolk University Law Review. 41 (1): 97–133. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Catalano, Andrea (2021). "The Marks rule misses the mark: How the Seventh Circuit correctly determined the precedential effect of the Supreme Court's June Medical plurality". Seventh Circuit Review. 17 (1): 1–41. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Clark, Rachael (2019). "Piecing together precedent: Fragmented decisions from the Washington State Supreme Court". Washington Law Review. 94 (4): 1989–2027. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Corley, Pamela C. (2009). "Uncertain precedent: Circuit court responses to Supreme Court plurality opinions". American Politics Research. 37 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1177/1532673X08319951. ISSN 1532-673X.
• Corley, Pamela. C.; Sommer, Udi; Steigerwalt, Amy; Ward, Artemus (2010). "Extreme Dissensus: Explaining Plurality Decisions on the United States Supreme Court" (PDF). Justice System Journal. 31 (2): 180–200. doi:10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767964. SSRN 1433742. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Craig, Robin Kundis (2011). "Agencies interpreting courts interpreting statutes: The deference conundrum of a divided Supreme Court". Emory Law Journal. 61 (1): 1–68. SSRN 1760591. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Curtis, Channing J. (2024). "Untwisting the Marks rule and plurality precedent: Affirmances by evenly divided courts and theories of holdings". Gonzaga Law Review. 59 (1): 46–91. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4383792. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Davis, John F.; Reynolds, William L. (1974). "Juridical cripples: Plurality opinions in the supreme court". Duke Law Journal: 59–86. JSTOR 1371753. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Davisson, Ben (2020). "Exodus from the land of confusion: Why Hughes v. United States supports the overruling of the unworkable Marks doctrine and a change in court practice". St. Louis University Law Journal. 65 (1): 227–250.
• Denno, Deborah W. (2014). "Lethal injection chaos post-Baze". Georgetown Law Journal. 102 (5): 1331–1382. SSRN 2328407. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Eber, Michael L. (2008). "When the dissent creates the law: Cross-cutting majorities and the prediction model of precedent". Emory Law Journal. 58 (1): 207–248. SSRN 1116306.
• Hochschild, Adam S. (2000). "The modern problem of Supreme Court plurality decision: Interpretation in historical perspective". Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. 4 (1): 261–287. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Kazakes, Andrew J. (2011). "Relatively unguided: Examining the precedential value of the plurality decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., and its effects on class action litigation". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 44 (3): 1049–1071. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Kimura, Ken (1992). "Legitimacy model for the interpretation of plurality decisions". Cornell Law Review. 77 (6): 1593–1627. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• L'Heureux-Dube, Claire (1990). "The length and plurality of Supreme Court of Canada decisions". Alberta Law Review. 28 (3): 581-588. doi:10.29173/alr1589. ISSN 1925-8356.
• Ledebur, Linas E. (2008). "Plurality rule: Concurring opinions and a divided Supreme Court" (PDF). Penn State Law Review. 113 (3): 899–921. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Marceau, Justin F. (2009). "Lifting the Haze of Baze: Lethal injection, the Eighth Amendment, and plurality opinions". Arizona State Law Journal. 41: 159ff. SSRN 1367203.
• Marceau, Justin F. (2013). "Plurality decisions: Upward flowing precedent and acoustic separation". Connecticut Law Review. 45 (3): 933-994. SSRN 2160000. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• McCauley, Sean (2017). "Revising the Marks rule in light of a plurality prone Supreme Court: A case study of National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius". Boston University Public Interest Law Journal. 26: 257ff.
• Neuenkirchen, John P. (2013). "Plurality decisions, implicit consensuses, and the fifth-vote rule under Marks v. United States" (PDF). Widener Law Review. 19: 387–440. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Novak, Linda (1980). "The precedential value of Supreme Court plurality decisions". Columbia Law Review. 80 (4): 756–781. JSTOR 1122139.
• Pfander, James E. (2 November 2015). "Making sense of plurality decisions". Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• "Plurality decisions and judicial decisionmaking". Harvard Law Review. 94 (5): 1127-1147. March 1981. doi:10.2307/1340692.
• "Plurality decisions — The Marks rule — Fourth Circuit declines to apply Justice White's concurrence in Powell v. Texas as Binding Precedent. — Manning v. Caldwell, 900 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2018)". Harvard Law Review. 132 (3): 1089–1095. 2019. JSTOR 26799678.
• Rivero, Albert H.; Key, Ellen M.; Segal, Jeffrey A. (2022-07-03). "Invisible constitutions: Concurring opinions and plurality judgments under Marks v. United States". Justice System Journal. 43 (3): 323–338. doi:10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943. ISSN 0098-261X.
• Spritzer, Ralph S. (1988). "Multiple issue cases and multi member courts: Observations on decision making by discordant minorities". Jurimetrics. 28 (2): 139–146. JSTOR 29762059.
• Stearns, Maxwell L. (2000). "The Case for Including Marks v. United States in the canon of constitutional law". Constitutional commentary. 17 (2): 321–339. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Steinman, Adam (23 March 2018). "Nonmajority opinions and biconditional rules". The Yale Law Journal Forum. 128. SSRN 3123807. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Stras, David R.; Spriggs, James F, II (2011). "Explaining plurality decisions" (PDF). Georgetown Law Journal. 99: 10–11. SSRN 1562737. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-14.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Sung, Christopher. (2014). How should lower courts interpret plurality decisions?: Exploring options through United States v. Duvall. Calif. L. Rev. Circuit, 5, 249.
• Thigpen, Helen (2007). "The plurality paradox: Rapanos v. US and the uncertain future of federal wetlands protection". Public Land & Resources Law Review. 28 (1): 89–115. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Thurmon, Mark Alan (1992). "When the court divides: Reconsidering the precedential value of Supreme Court plurality decisions". Duke Law Journal. 42 (2): 419–468. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Varsava, Nina (2019). "The role of dissents in the formation of precedent". Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy. 14 (1): 285–343. SSRN 3094016. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Varon, Jennifer R. (2013). "A powerless plurality: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in US v. James correctly determined that the plurality opinion in Williams v. Illinois lacks precedential value". Creighton Law Review. 47: 193–217. hdl:10504/136807.
• Weins, W. Jesse (2011). "A problematic plurality precedent: Why the Supreme Court should leave Marks over Van Orden v. Perry". Nebraska Law Review. 85 (3): 830–874. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• West, Sonja R. (2006). "Concurring in part & concurring in the confusion". Michigan Law Review. 104 (8): 1951–1960. JSTOR 40041453. SSRN 804325. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Williams, Ryan C. (2017). "Questioning Marks: Plurality decisions and precedential constraint" (PDF). Stanford Law Review. 69 (3): 795–865. SSRN 2798738. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Williams, Ryan C. (2021). "Plurality decisions and the ambiguity of precedential authority". Florida Law Review. 74: 1–62. SSRN 3816564. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
• Williams, Ryan C. (2022). "Plurality decisions and prior precedent" (PDF). The Federal Courts Law Review. 14: 75–105. Retrieved 25 January 2024.