Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 76

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

5 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

going on to affirm the Kansas Supreme Court, was written 
by Chief Justice Hughes and announced by Justice Stone. 
Justice  Frankfurter,  joined  by  three  other  Justices,  held 
there  was  no  standing,  and  would  have  dismissed  the 
petition  (leaving  the  judgment  of  the  Kansas  Supreme
Court  in  place).    Justice  Butler,  joined  by  Justice  McRey-
nolds,  dissented  (neither  joining  Hughes’s  opinion  nor 
separately  discussing  standing)  and  would  have  reversed
the Kansas Supreme Court.

That adds up to two votes to affirm on the merits, two to 
reverse  on  the  merits  (without  discussing  standing)  and 
four to dismiss for lack of standing.  Justice Stanley Reed, 
who was on the Court  and apparently participated in  the
case,  is  not  mentioned  in  any  of  the  opinions  recorded  in 
the United States Reports.  So, in order to find Coleman a 
binding precedent on standing, rather than a 4-to-4 stand-
off,  one  must  assume  that  Justice  Reed  voted  with 
Hughes.    There  is  some  reason  to  make  that  assumption: 
The four Justices rejecting standing went on to discuss the 
merits,  because  “the  ruling  of  the  Court  just  announced 
removes from the case the question of petitioners’ standing
to sue.”  307 U. S., at 456 (Black, J., concurring).  But then 
again, if nine Justices participated, how could it be that on 
one  of  the  two  issues  in  the  case  the  Court  was  “equally 
divided and therefore . . . expresse[d] no opinion”?  Id., at 
447. 

A pretty shaky foundation for a significant precedential 
ruling.  Besides that, the two dissenters’ mere assumption
of  standing—neither  saying  anything  about  the  subject
nor  joining  Hughes’s  opinion  on  the  point—produces  (if 
you  assume  Reed  joined  Hughes)  a  majority  for  standing
but no majority opinion explaining why.  And even under 
the  most  generous  assumptions,  since  the  Court’s  judg-
ment  on  the  issue  it  resolved  rested  on  the  ground  that 
that issue presented a political question—which is itself a 
rejection  of  jurisdiction,  Zivotofsky  v.  Clinton,  566  U. S.