Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 70

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

see  how  a  full-blown  decision  of  this  Court  reaching  the 
same result can be regarded as a non-precedent.12 

C 
What  do  our  three  colleagues  say  in  response?    They 
begin by suggesting that Louisiana conceded that Apodaca
is not a precedent.  See ante, at 16–17.  This interpretation 
of the State’s position is questionable,13 but even if Louisi-
ana made that concession, how could that settle the matter? 
What about Oregon, the only State that still permits non-
unanimous verdicts?  Oregon certainly did not make such a 
concession.  On the contrary, it submitted an amicus brief 
arguing strenuously that Apodaca is a precedent and that 
it should be retained.  Brief for State of Oregon as Amicus 
Curiae 6–32.  And what about any other State that might 
want to allow such verdicts in the future?  So the majority’s 
reliance  on  Louisiana’s  purported  concession  simply  will 
not do. 

Our three colleagues’ next try is to argue that Apodaca is 
not binding because a case has no ratio decidendi when a 
majority does not agree on the reason for the result.  Ante, 
at 19, and n. 54.  This argument, made in passing, consti-
tutes an attack on the rule that the Court adopted in Marks 
v. United States, 430 U. S. 188 (1977), for determining the 
holding of a decision when there is no majority opinion.  Un-
der the Marks rule, “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a 
case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the 
assent  of  five  Justices,  the  holding  of  the  Court  may  be 

—————— 

12 It is true, of course, that a summary affirmance has less precedential 
value than a decision on the merits, see, e.g., Comptroller of Treasury of 
Md. v. Wynne, 575 U. S. 542, 560–561 (2015), but we have never said the
same about decisions on the merits that were reached without an opinion
of the Court. 

13 What the State appears to have meant is that Justice Powell’s rea-
soning was not binding.  See Brief for Respondent 47; Tr. of Oral Arg. 
37–38.