Answer :
Final answer:
A U.S. Supreme Court Justice who agrees with the majority decision but for different reasons will write a 'concurring opinion', reflecting their unique interpretation of the law or Constitution.
Explanation:
In the field of law, specifically within the U.S. Supreme Court, a justice who agrees with the majority on the outcome of a case, but has differing legal reasons for their agreement, will typically write a concurring opinion. A concurring opinion provides the justice's unique perspective and rationale, separate from the main reasoning provided in the majority opinion. Thus, this allows the justice to voice their distinct interpretation of the law or Constitution, while still affirming the decision made by the majority.
Remember, not every justice that agrees with the majority decision will write a concurring opinion, it's usually done when the justice has fundamentally different reasons for reaching the same verdict. On the other hand, if a justice disagrees with the majority decision, they would write a dissenting opinion. A unanimous decision involves all justices agreeing on the opinion, and a plurality opinion happens when an opinion is supported by more justices than any other but does not have the support of the majority (more than half).
Learn more about Concurring Opinion here:
https://brainly.com/question/32703401
#SPJ11
