In a court opinion, “per curiam” is Latin for “by the court,” and it means the ruling is issued in the name of the whole court rather than signed by any individual judge. So what does per curiam mean in practice? The decision still has a majority behind it and still carries legal weight; the court has simply chosen not to credit one judge as the author.
How It Looks on the Page
A typical appellate opinion opens with a line like “Justice Smith delivered the opinion of the Court.” A per curiam opinion replaces that attribution with the words “PER CURIAM” in capital letters. The names of the judges who sat on the case are still public, but which one actually drafted the text is not. In most cases one judge does write it; the court just declines to put a name on it.
It Doesn’t Mean Unanimous
A frequent misreading is that per curiam signals a unanimous court. It doesn’t. The label applies only to the majority opinion. Individual judges remain free to file signed concurrences and dissents alongside it, and they often do.1Legal Information Institute. Per Curiam
When you read one of these decisions, look at what follows the main opinion. The unsigned text tells you what the court decided. The signed concurrences and dissents tell you where individual judges actually stand, and those separate writings often shape later litigation more than the per curiam itself.
When Courts Use It
Most per curiam opinions dispose of routine matters where the law is settled and the outcome is obvious. Federal circuit courts, which generally sit in three-judge panels, use the format regularly to resolve cases that just apply existing precedent.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 46 – Assignment of Judges; Panels; Hearings; Quorum These decisions tend to be short, sometimes only a few paragraphs, and often skip oral argument.1Legal Information Institute. Per Curiam
Per Curiam Affirmed (PCA)
You’ll sometimes see “per curiam affirmed,” abbreviated PCA. The appellate court has reviewed the lower court’s decision and upheld it without writing a full opinion. There is no written reasoning to attack, which leaves the losing party with less to work with on further appeal.3Ballotpedia. Per Curiam
Summary Reversals
The U.S. Supreme Court also uses per curiam opinions to summarily reverse a lower court without full briefing or oral argument. The theory is that the decision below was plainly wrong and doesn’t warrant the usual months-long process. These rulings tend to be short, unsigned, and released alongside the Court’s weekly order list.
High-Stakes Disputes
Courts also reach for the format in urgent, politically charged cases where projecting institutional unity matters. Election disputes and emergency stays of execution are familiar examples. The unsigned format sends a signal that the position belongs to the court, not to one judge. These opinions can run dozens of pages.
Does It Still Count as Precedent?
Yes. A published per curiam opinion carries the same legal authority as any signed opinion from the same court. A published per curiam ruling from a federal circuit court binds every district court in that circuit, and lawyers must treat it as controlling precedent.
The real distinction is not per curiam versus signed, but published versus unpublished. Many per curiam opinions are designated unpublished or non-precedential, especially the routine ones. An unpublished opinion generally does not create binding precedent, though under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, lawyers may cite unpublished federal opinions issued after January 1, 2007.4Federal Judicial Center. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 Individual circuits have their own rules about how much weight those opinions carry.
If a per curiam opinion is published and marked as precedential, it has the full force of law. The missing author line changes nothing about its binding effect.
Two Landmark Examples
Per curiam is not reserved for minor cases. Two Supreme Court decisions make that clear.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court issued a per curiam opinion that reshaped free speech law. The ruling held that the government cannot punish advocacy of illegal action unless the speech is directed at inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it. That standard still governs First Amendment cases today. Justices Black and Douglas filed signed concurring opinions alongside the unsigned majority.
In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court decided the outcome of a presidential election through a per curiam opinion, holding that Florida’s manual recount procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause. The case was argued on December 11 and decided the next day. Despite the per curiam label, the court was deeply split: Chief Justice Rehnquist filed a concurrence joined by two justices, and four justices filed separate dissents.5Justia US Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98 (2000)
How It Appears in Citations
In legal briefs and law review articles, the label shows up in a parenthetical at the end of a case citation. Under the Bluebook, the dominant legal citation manual, the phrase “(per curiam)” appears after the date, as in Werbsa v. Seiler, 393 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1968) (per curiam). The parenthetical tells the reader that no individual judge is credited with the opinion, which can matter when weighing the context of the decision.