Reagan v. Abourezk
Headline: A case between the President and private parties is left as the lower court decided after the Supreme Court split evenly, affirming the lower judgment and noting two Justices did not participate.
Holding: The Supreme Court, equally divided, affirms the judgment below and leaves the lower-court ruling in effect; two Justices did not take part in deciding the case.
- Leaves the appeals-court judgment in effect for the parties named in the case.
- Results from a tied Court mean no new Supreme Court majority opinion was issued.
- Two Justices’ nonparticipation reduced the Court’s deciding membership in this case.
Summary
Background
This case names the President of the United States and other private parties and came to the Supreme Court after an appeals-court decision. It was argued on October 5, 1987, and decided on October 19, 1987. The Solicitor General’s deputy argued for the petitioners, and counsel for the other parties also appeared; several outside groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs.
Reasoning
The Court issued a short, unsigned statement (per curiam) saying only that the judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Two Justices — Justice Blackmun and Justice Scalia — did not take part in the consideration or decision. Because the Justices were evenly divided, there was no majority opinion explaining a new rule or rationale from the Supreme Court.
Real world impact
The immediate result is practical and narrow: the appeals-court judgment remains in effect for this case, and the parties named in the litigation are directly affected. The Supreme Court’s brief per curiam affirmance does not provide a new, broadly explained Supreme Court ruling for other courts to follow. The decision reflects a split Court and leaves the appeals-court outcome intact while not resolving the broader legal questions that may have been presented.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?