View source for Per curiam decision

{{Short description|Legal ruling by a court which does not state which judge authored the decision}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Per curiam'' decision}}
{{distinguish|Per incuriam}}
{{Globalize|1=article|date=November 2020}}
{{Judicial opinions}}
In [[law]], a '''''per curiam'' decision''' or '''opinion''' (sometimes called an '''unsigned opinion''') is one that is not authored by or attributed to a specific judge, but rather ascribed to the entire [[court]] or panel of judges who heard the case.<ref name="blacks">{{cite book|title=Black's Law Dictionary|editor=Bryan A. Garner|publisher=West Group|location=St. Paul, MN|year=2001|edition=2nd Pocket|pages=503, 523}}</ref> The term {{lang|la|per curiam}} is [[Latin]] for {{Gloss|by the court}}.<ref name=mwed>{{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/per%20curiam|title=Per curiam|work=Merriam Webster English Dictionary|publisher=Merriam-Webster|access-date=28 June 2012}}</ref>

==United States==

===Federal===
{{category see also|United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions}}

The decisions of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] are generally not ''per curiam'', with exceptions.<ref name="culs">{{cite web|url=http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/per_curiam|title=Per curiam|work=Wex|publisher=Cornell University Law School|access-date=2008-09-10}}</ref> Their decisions more commonly take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices which are then joined in by other justices.<ref name="culs" /> Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered ''per curiam'' decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as ''per curiam''.<ref name=culs/> ''Per curiam'' decisions tend to be short.<ref name=culs/> In modern practice, they are most commonly used in summary decisions that the Court resolves without full argument and briefing.<ref>See https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/glossary-of-legal-terms/ (observing that summary reversals are usually issued as per curiam opinions)</ref> The designation is stated at the beginning of the opinion. Single-line ''per curiam'' decisions are also issued without concurrence or dissent by a hung Supreme Court (a 4–4 decision), when the Court has a vacant seat.

The notable exceptions to the usual characteristics for a ''per curiam'' decision are the cases of ''[[New York Times Co. v. United States]]'', ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'', and ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]''. Although they were ''per curiam'',<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html |title=Bush V. Gore |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |date= |accessdate=2022-04-23}}</ref> each had multiple concurrences and dissents.<ref>{{cite web|author=Stevens |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html |title=Bush V. Gore |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |date= |accessdate=2022-04-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Rehnquist |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZC.html |title=Bush V. Gore |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |date= |accessdate=2022-04-23}}</ref>

Examples include:
* ''[[Ex parte Quirin]]'', {{ussc|317|1|1942}}
* ''[[Ray v. Blair]]'', {{ussc|343|214|1952}}
* ''[[Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.|Toolson v. New York Yankees]]'', {{ussc|346|356|1953}}
* ''[[One, Inc. v. Olesen]]'', {{ussc|355|371|1958}}
* ''[[Cooper v. Aaron]],'' {{Ussc|volume=358|page=1|year=1958}}
* ''[[Dusky v. United States]]'', {{ussc|362|402|1960}}
* ''[[Brandenburg v. Ohio]]'', {{ussc|395|444|1969}}
* ''[[Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education]]'', {{ussc|396|19|1969}}  
* ''[[New York Times Co. v. United States]]'', {{ussc|403|713|1971}}
* ''[[Furman v. Georgia]]'', {{ussc|408|238|1972}}
* ''[[City of New Orleans v. Dukes]]'', {{ussc|427|297|1976}}
* ''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'', {{ussc|424|1|1976}}
* ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'', {{ussc|531|98|2000}}
* ''[[Los Angeles County v. Rettele]]'', {{ussc|550|609|2007}}
* ''[[American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock]]'', {{ussc|567|517|2012}}
* ''[[Trump v. Anderson]]'', {{ussc|docket=23-719|volume=601|date=2024}}
* ''[[TikTok v. Garland]]'', {{ussc|docket=24–656 |volume=604|date=2025}}

The ''per curiam'' practices of the individual [[United States Courts of Appeals]] vary by judicial circuit. The [[Second Circuit]], for instance, issues its nonprecedential decisions as "summary orders" that do not designate an author but are also not labeled as ''per curiam'' opinions; occasionally, the court will issue precedential decisions with a ''per curiam'' designation. In the [[Third Circuit]], by contrast, the majority of both precedential and nonprecedential decisions indicate the authoring judge, and the ''per curiam'' designation is generally, but not exclusively, reserved for dispositions on the court's ''[[Pro se legal representation in the United States|pro se]]'' and summary action calendar.

===State===
The [[Supreme Court of California]] occasionally releases decisions in the name of "The Court" but they are not necessarily unanimous. Sometimes, they are accompanied by extensive concurring and dissenting opinions.<ref>See, e.g., ''Sundance v. Municipal Court'', [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C3/42C3d1101.htm 42 Cal. 3d 1101] (1986).</ref>

The [[Supreme Court of Florida]] frequently releases death penalty opinions in a ''per curiam'' form, even if there are concurring and dissenting opinions to the majority.<ref>See, e.g., {{Cite court|litigants=Mosley v. State|court=Fla.|reporter=So. 3d|vol=209|opinion=1248|date=2016|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5336388779338524121}} {{Cite court|litigants=Hitchcock v. State|court=Fla.|reporter=So. 2d|vol=413|opinion=741|date=1982|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2877218616672991614&q=413+so2d+741&hl=en&as_sdt=40006}}</ref>

Many decisions of the [[New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division]], especially in the First and Second Judicial Departments, do not designate an author. Across the Departments, the ''per curiam'' designation is used in attorney disciplinary decisions.<ref>See, e.g., ''Matter of Stein'', http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_01606.htm</ref>

==Canada==
{{main article|By the Court decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada}}
The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] uses the term "The Court" instead of ''per curiam''. The practice began around 1979 by [[Chief Justice of Canada|Chief Justice]] [[Bora Laskin|Laskin]], borrowing from the [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]] practice of anonymizing certain unanimous decisions.<ref>L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire. "The Dissenting Opinion: Voice of the Future?" 38 Osgoode Hall L.J. 495 at 500</ref> 

However, unlike US courts, which use ''per curiam'' primarily for uncontroversial cases, the Supreme Court tends to attribute decisions to "The Court" in important and controversial cases, to emphasize that the Court is speaking with one voice.<ref>McCormick, Peter. "The Political Jurisprudence of Hot Potatoes" (2002) 13 Nat'l J. Const. L. 271 at 176</ref><ref>Bzdera, Andre. "Comparative Analysis of Federal High Courts: A Political Theory of Judicial Review" (1993) 26 Canadian Journal of Political Science 3 at 25</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Portal bar|Law}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Per Curiam Decision}}
[[Category:Judiciaries]]
[[Category:Latin legal terminology]]
[[Category:Judgment (law)]]
[[Category:Works published anonymously]]