In a court opinion, “per curiam” is a Latin label meaning “by the court.” It marks a decision issued in the name of the court as a whole, with no individual judge identified as the author. A per curiam opinion carries the same legal authority as a signed one; the only thing missing is the byline.
How to Spot One
Most appellate opinions open with a line like “Justice Smith delivered the opinion of the Court.” A per curiam opinion opens with the words “PER CURIAM” in that same spot. No author appears anywhere in the document, even if a single judge drafted every word behind the scenes.
Length is not a reliable clue. Some per curiam opinions are a single paragraph announcing an outcome. Others run dozens of pages with heavy legal analysis. Bush v. Gore, for example, was a lengthy per curiam decision that worked through complex equal-protection questions.1Justia. Bush v Gore 531 US 98 (2000) The missing author’s name is the only consistent marker.
What the Label Does and Doesn’t Signal
The format presents the reasoning as the court’s institutional work product. It does not mean the court is unanimous. Judges can and often do attach concurring or dissenting opinions to a per curiam ruling, so the “collective” voice sometimes hides sharp disagreement. In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court issued a short per curiam opinion while all nine justices filed separate writings explaining their own views.2Justia. New York Times Co v United States 403 US 713 (1971)
Per curiam is also different from a memorandum opinion or summary order. A memorandum opinion is usually brief, often unpublished, and resolves routine cases without creating binding precedent. A per curiam opinion is published and can establish precedent lower courts must follow. The term describes authorship, not importance or depth.
Why Courts Use It
Courts reach for the format in two very different situations.
The first is routine cases. When the legal issue is settled and the lower court plainly got it right or wrong, an appellate court may issue a quick per curiam opinion rather than assign a judge to produce a full analysis. Under Supreme Court Rule 16, the Court can grant certiorari and summarily affirm or reverse a lower court’s judgment without full briefing or oral argument, and these summary dispositions almost always come out per curiam.3Legal Information Institute. Supreme Court Rules – Rule 16 Disposition of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
The second use is the opposite: high-stakes, time-sensitive cases where the court wants to project a unified institutional voice. Emergency petitions, stays of execution, and politically charged disputes sometimes arrive per curiam precisely because no individual judge wants to be the face of the ruling.
The Shadow Docket
The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” has drawn increasing attention for its use of per curiam orders. The informal term refers to the Court’s orders docket, where matters are resolved through summary orders rather than full merits opinions. Many of these orders briefly announce a result without explaining the legal reasoning behind it. Critics argue the rapid pace means factual and legal records may not be fully developed before the Court acts. Supporters counter that emergency applications require fast action, and the per curiam format allows a response without the months-long process of full briefing.4Library of Congress. The Interim Docket or Shadow Docket: Non-Merits Matters at the Supreme Court
Does It Still Bind Lower Courts?
Yes. The missing author’s name has no effect on legal force. A per curiam opinion from an appellate court binds lower courts within that jurisdiction the same way a signed majority opinion does. Attorneys cite per curiam rulings in briefs, and trial judges apply them, without any discount for the format.
Summary affirmances get slightly more careful treatment. In Hicks v. Miranda, the Supreme Court held that a summary affirmance has binding precedential effect for lower federal courts, but only on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided. A summary affirmance approves the lower court’s judgment without necessarily endorsing its reasoning. Lower courts must follow a summary disposition until the Supreme Court signals otherwise, though later doctrinal developments can erode its weight even without a formal reversal.5Justia. Hicks v Miranda 422 US 332 (1975)
Why Some Scholars Criticize the Format
The main objection is accountability. When a judge signs an opinion, that judge’s name is permanently attached to the reasoning and any errors. Colleagues, attorneys, and the public can evaluate the work and hold the author professionally accountable. A per curiam opinion removes that pressure, and critics argue it reduces the incentive to produce rigorous analysis.
Legal scholars, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Richard Posner, have argued that judges do not work as hard on unsigned opinions as they do on signed ones. The threat of professional criticism acts as a quality check that per curiam opinions sidestep. When an author’s identity is hidden, so is that author’s judicial philosophy, which makes it harder for the legal profession to track how individual judges interpret the law.
A sharper criticism is that the label can be used strategically: to resolve a politically sensitive case quickly, to shield the court from backlash, or to shift the law without anyone taking ownership of the change. The format conveys institutional consensus that may not match reality, particularly when the decision is closely divided. Bush v. Gore is the case critics point to most often: the per curiam label suggested the Court spoke with one voice, but the 5–4 split, with four justices filing sharp dissents on the remedy, told a different story.1Justia. Bush v Gore 531 US 98 (2000)
Examples That Show the Range
Some of the most consequential rulings in American constitutional law carry no author’s name:
- New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Pentagon Papers case. The per curiam opinion was just a few sentences, holding that the government had not met the heavy burden needed to justify a prior restraint on publication. All nine justices then filed separate writings.2Justia. New York Times Co v United States 403 US 713 (1971)
- Bush v. Gore (2000), halting the Florida recount and effectively deciding the presidential election.1Justia. Bush v Gore 531 US 98 (2000)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which established the modern test for when inflammatory speech loses First Amendment protection, requiring that advocacy be directed to inciting imminent lawless action and be likely to produce it.
Per curiam does not mean unimportant, and it does not mean unanimous. It means the court is choosing to speak as an institution rather than through a named judge, for reasons that can range from administrative efficiency to strategic restraint.