What happens when there are multiple opinions joined by a majority of justices of the U.S. Supreme Court?
<p>The chief justice, or the most senior justice in the majority if the chief justice is in the dissent, assigns a justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court.</p>
<p>Suppose that the selected justice writes the opinion of the court which is joined by a majority of justices. However, another justice in the majority chooses to write a concurring opinion and it is also joined by a majority of justices. As a result, there are 2 opinions and both are joined (agreed to) by a majority of justices.</p>
<p>Would both opinions be considered majority opinions and binding precedents?</p>

<p>There is only one majority &quot;opinion of the court&quot;, which is the one that is binding. Concurring opinions are not binding, but can be persuasive. However, the opinion of the court can be w.r.t. a section so there can be multiple non-overlapping opinions of the court, see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/540bv.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">McConnell v. FEC</a>, 540 U.S. 93. At the tail end of the syllabus, there is statement of who delivered the opinion and who joined in that opinion (also a statement of &quot;exceptions&quot;). Those three opinions define &quot;the law&quot;. Then there are concurring opinions, and dissenting opinions, and an opinion which is not &quot;the opinion of the court&quot; can concur in part and dissent in part.</p>

united-states us-supreme-court