A Supreme Court opinion is a decision and a piece of writing. Five opinions, from 1803 to 2000, show five ways of writing one: a series of questions answered in order, a plain statement of where the cases came from, a short factual opening, a rule restated with its precedent, and an unsigned opinion that limits itself to its own facts.
Questions, answered in order
Marbury v. Madison (1803), decided February 24, 1803, with the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice. William Marbury and others asked the Court for a writ of mandamus requiring Secretary of State James Madison to deliver their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The opinion is organized around three questions, stated at the start: "Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?" Does the law afford a remedy if that right was violated? And is the remedy a mandamus issuing from this Court? It takes them one at a time. On the third, it concludes that the statute giving the Court power to issue such writs to public officers "appears not to be warranted by the constitution," and turns to whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can be law. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
A short statement of where the cases come from
Brown v. Board of Education (1954), decided May 17, 1954. Chief Justice Warren's opinion for the Court opens by saying where the cases come from: "These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware." It then describes the consolidated cases, which are attacks on racial segregation in public schools, and the doctrine of "separate but equal" announced in Plessy v. Ferguson. The conclusion is stated in two sentences: "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Facts first, then the principle
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), decided March 18, 1963. Justice Black's opinion for the Court begins with the facts: "Petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor." Gideon appeared without funds and without a lawyer and asked the court to appoint counsel, but this was denied because state law allowed appointed counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. The Court held that his trial and conviction without a lawyer violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and overruled Betts v. Brady. The reasoning is stated in plain terms: "any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth." It also names an ideal: "This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him." Justice Clark filed an opinion concurring in the result, and Justice Harlan a concurring opinion.
A rule restated, with its precedent
United States v. Nixon (1974), decided July 24, 1974. The Special Prosecutor obtained a subpoena for tapes and documents relating to precisely identified conversations and meetings between the President and others. The President claimed executive privilege and moved to quash. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. It reaffirms Marbury: "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." It holds that where a claim of privilege is based "merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality," the President's assertion "must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."
An opinion that limits itself
Bush v. Gore (2000), decided December 12, 2000, in a per curiam opinion, the Court's own unsigned opinion with no single author named. It reversed the Florida Supreme Court's judgment ordering manual recounts, because any recount meeting the December 12 "safe-harbor" date set by federal law would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion also marks its own reach: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
What the five opinions show
The five decisions differ in form as much as in subject. Marbury frames its decision as three questions, Brown and Gideon open with where the cases came from or what happened, Nixon restates a rule and ties it to a precedent, and Bush v. Gore is unsigned and says how far it goes. This post covers five opinions and does not rank them as writing. It does not cover the Court's dissents and concurrences, apart from the two noted in Gideon.
Sources
- Marbury v. Madison (1803), 5 U.S. 137: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 347 U.S. 483: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- United States v. Nixon (1974), 418 U.S. 683: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Bush v. Gore (2000), 531 U.S. 98: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
Updated November 2026.
This post was rewritten with AI (Claude) and reviewed by an editor before publication.