A per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling handed down by a court with multiple judges in which the decision was made by the court acting as a whole, as opposed to statements made by individual judges. The literal meaning of this legal term is "by the court". Most decisions on the merits by the U.S. Supreme Court (and other appellate courts in the U.S.) take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices (and joined in by others). Even when such signed opinions are unanimous, they are not termed "per curiam." "Per curiam" decisions are given that label by the Court itself and tend to be short. Usually, though not always, they deal with issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial. However, per curiam opinions are not necessarily unanimous and are sometimes accompanied by dissenting opinions. E.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Bush v. Gore is unique in its use of a "per curiam" decision because it has been alleged that none of the justices wanted to be associated with its authorship, given the highly-charged politics of the 2000 Presidential election.[1][2] The top appellate courts of some states (e.g., Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina) use the same terminology.
Examples
- Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. 409 (1792)
- Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
- Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
