Season 4, Episode 12 (Show 169): Dissenting in Concurrence

March 20, 2024

Analysis of the concurrences, this time concentrating on those areas where these Justices disagreed with the per curiam opinion.

CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder.  This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many.  Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent.  Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences?  What can we learn from all this? 

(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)

Show Notes:

How to get Continuing Legal Education Credit for listening!

Virtually all lawyers and judges admitted to practice anywhere in the USA can obtain CLE (Continuing Legal Education) credit after listening to this episode by visiting podcast.njsba.com.  You do not have to be a New Jersey lawyer or resident or admitted to the NJ Bar; essentially every state has reciprocity arrangements with New Jersey.  When you visit the site you fill out a form and provide the code Andy read during the episode, pay a small fee, and within two weeks you will receive the certificate from New Jersey.  It couldn’t be easier.  Thanks to the New Jersey Bar Association for making this possible!  Note, too, that other podcast episodes from our “back catalog” now qualify for this credit as well.

Click to go to the website for CLE credit

Trump v. Anderson (2024)

The opinion, including the concurrences.

Read and/or Download

Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - Akhil Amar

The Concurrence by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson criticizes the per curiam opinion for going beyond the area where they found common ground.  Professor Amar, back in 1989, writes about Marbury v. Madison, a case famous for its findings, which were largely – perhaps entirely – dicta, raising the question of what the standard on this issue should be.

Read and/or Download