Define concurring and dissenting U.S. Supreme Court opinions and describe their role.

What will be an ideal response?

Justices of the Court generally have four options when deciding a case. They may join the majority opinion, dissent due to disagreement with the judgment, concur in support of the outcome, or recuse themselves due to some conflict of interest. A majority of the Court must agree on the judgment for a decision to establish binding precedent. If only a plurality of justices signs the opinion of the Court, a concurring opinion written by one or more justices may provide the needed votes to render a binding precedent. This happens when justices agree with the decision of the majority but wish to set out differences in reasoning or application of doctrine, or want to raise issues not treated in the majority opinion. In such instances, the concurring opinion may shape the rule established by the Court. Dissenting opinions can be extremely sharp and critical of the majority’s decision. They may argue strongly in favor of a very different strategy for resolving the case, or they may even assert that the case should never have been heard for any of a wide number of reasons. The history of the Court shows that these pointed dissents sometimes are persuasive and later are adopted by a majority. Dissents may signal areas of deep division within the Court and may suggest the direction of future Court analyses.