Answer :
Final answer:
A justice who agrees with the majority's decision but for different reasons writes a concurring opinion. It's an individual justice's interpretation that can influence future law, separate from the majority or dissenting opinions.
Explanation:
When a justice agrees with the majority of the Supreme Court in the outcome of a case but has different reasoning, this is captured in a document known as a concurring opinion. This is distinct from the majority opinion, which represents the main reasoning of the Court, and the dissenting opinion, written by justices who disagree with the majority's conclusion. A concurring opinion is valuable as it may influence future legal thinking and case law, even if it does not represent the principal rationale of the Court's decision.
