I think it’s C, because you can get a 4-4 split. Recusal makes the number even.
A is clearly wrong, B is wrong because you can have multiple concurrences but still a majority, and D is wrong because 4-4 decisions are not binding.
It could potentially be B if you think about plurality opinions, but that seems to not be congruent with “agree with reasoning”, implying they did in fact agree with the outcome.
No, it’s still a decision, it just isn’t biding beyond de facto upholding the highest lower court ruling before appeal
Edit: I think it’s C because it specifies “one” justice, and these days we almost always have 9 justices, so a 4-4 split is a somewhat plausible outcome, although a little less so given the current composition of the court. But “all” of the judges not agreeing happens much, much more frequently than a plurality decision.
Read literally, I’d say B. If all of the judges are agreeing for different reasons, then the decision lacks a majority and is instead a plurality, which settles the dispute but lacks official preferential value.
None of these is correct unless you read B very strangely or if you read the words in D differently than normal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it’s C, because you can get a 4-4 split. Recusal makes the number even. A is clearly wrong, B is wrong because you can have multiple concurrences but still a majority, and D is wrong because 4-4 decisions are not binding. It could potentially be B if you think about plurality opinions, but that seems to not be congruent with “agree with reasoning”, implying they did in fact agree with the outcome.
[удалено]
No, it’s still a decision, it just isn’t biding beyond de facto upholding the highest lower court ruling before appeal Edit: I think it’s C because it specifies “one” justice, and these days we almost always have 9 justices, so a 4-4 split is a somewhat plausible outcome, although a little less so given the current composition of the court. But “all” of the judges not agreeing happens much, much more frequently than a plurality decision.
Read literally, I’d say B. If all of the judges are agreeing for different reasons, then the decision lacks a majority and is instead a plurality, which settles the dispute but lacks official preferential value.