Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maestro postolero
I read somewhere that the only part of a SCOTUS decision that carries the force of law is the holding itself. Is this true?
|
What makes reading a Supreme Court decision difficult, is that most of us common people don't understand what it is we are reading... Well, to be fair, many attorneys and Judges will misstate what the actual "holding" is.
Consider that what we read, is what one of the law clerks have written. This can be emphasized when we read the syllabus. The opinion of the majority (and hence the decision) is written by a specific Justice, to which the other Justices attach their signatures (meaning that they agree with what and how the decision was written). Sometimes there will be concurring decisions, written by another Justice (and it too may have the signatures of other Justices), which agrees on the outcome, but not the legal route taken to get there. There are also the dissenting opinions, which just like the majority opinion, may have signatories.
A clear opinion (decision) is one that is written in such a way the the majority of the court agrees and signs. Decisions become less clear when there are two or more majority opinions.
The syllabus more often than not, nowadays, starts with a brief description of the controversy. This description often includes what was held. Usually with the words:
HELD: and a very very brief of what the law clerk that wrote the description understands as the holding.
This does not mean that this is the actual holding. For that, you need to read the majority opinion. Remember, this part is what a law clerk is writing, and his idea of the majorities opinion may not actually be what the majority decided.
At any rate, anything not related to the "holding" is considered dicta (an opinion voiced by a judge on a point of law not directly bearing on the case in question and therefore not binding). There are 12 different appellate courts and each may read a particular Supreme Court "holding" slightly different.
That's usually when the SCOTUS will grant cert to another case that's similar, in order to clarify what they meant.
So, that's your answer in brief. Um, kinda muddies the water a bit, yes?