A Supreme Court justice agrees with the outcome of a case but disagrees with the legal reasoning presented in the majority opinion. Which of the following actions would take place?

1. Write a concurring opinion
2. Write the majority opinion
3. Write the dissenting opinion
4. Nothing - justices are not allowed to comment if they disagree with the legal reasoning decided by the court

A Supreme Court justice who agrees with the outcome of a case but disagrees with the legal reasoning of the majority can write a concurring opinion, providing their own rationale for the decision.

Explanation:

If a Supreme Court justice agrees with the outcome of a case but disagrees with the legal reasoning of the majority, they can write a concurring opinion. In a concurring opinion, the justice agrees with the overall outcome of the case, but they provide their own legal rationale for reaching that decision. This is different from the majority opinion which is the official legal reasoning for the court's decision, and from the dissenting opinion, where a justice disagrees with both the outcome of the case and the legal reasoning.

Learn more about Supreme Court here:

https://brainly.com/question/32059914

#SPJ11