First off...

This decision comes with a Syllabus. This is a quick and dirty summary or abstract of what follows. It's not written by a judge and isn't legally binding... it's like Cliff's notes for lawyers.

This syllabus lays out:

• the title of the case (the "et al" is Latin for "and others"),
• the path through which the case arrived at the Court (granted certiorari from the Sixth Circuit),
• the case number and date of arguments and decision
• important background for the case

"Decisions, decisions... oh, Payday!"

The end of the syllabus tells the decision (which reverses the previous decision), and lists where the justices stand on the decision. As you'll see later in Chapter 9, Supreme Court voting can be confusing.

In this case, Rehnquist writes the majority decision, which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas sign onto (Note: "CJ" stands for Chief Justice; "J" stands for Justice, and "JJ" stands for justices). However, O'Connor and Thomas write their own concurring opinion (more on this later), and Stevens, Souter, and Breyer all write dissents. More on this below.

Here Comes the Judgement... which tells us what the Judge meant

So here's the real decision (or at least the first of 22 pages of the real decision, most of which we'll just be skipping, if you don't mind). Note that suddenly there are a lot more v's floating around... see all of the ink that "et al" saved us from in the Syllabus? See, Latin can be your friend.

Right below the date, we see that this opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and that it is the official opinion (binding decision) of the Court.

Rehnquist then shows poor form by actually telling you what the Court's decision is... normally judges will keep you in some form of suspense to increase the dramatic tension. Here he just ruins it for everyone.

Like we said before...

Skipping a few pages down (again, if you'd like to go through every page, just let us know. No? Just checking), a large portion of this and every other decision of the judiciary consists of situating the current decision in precedent. In other words, judges spend a lot of time explaining how prior court decisions help justify the current decision (which is a product of the notion of stare decisis, or "let the precedent stand").

The intimidating text throughout [(530 U.S. 793, 810-814 (2000) (plurality opinion) and such] are just citations that allow other lawyers to find the material being cited. They're scary-looking, but just imagine how intimidated John Paul Stevens probably is by a long web URL. Same deal...

By the way, id. is short for idem, which means the "same as above," and supra just means above.

Take That, Souter!

Reading court cases gets be to a lot more fun when you realize the judges are often talking trash about one another. Here, Rehnquist is attacking one of Justice Souter's arguments from his dissent below. In the footnote here, he implies Souter is inconsistent about the preferred level of voucher funding. Judges love footnotes.

The Decision

Here's the Official Word. Rehnquist sums up, and tells the decision of the Court (that the prior ruling by the Sixth District Court of Appeals is reversed). "It is so ordered" is non-Star Trek speak for "Make it so."

Note that court decisions can also "affirm" (agree with) decisions, or "remand" them, where they send the decision back to the lower court and tell them to do something. Bush v. Gore reversed and remanded the Florida Supreme Court's decision, which initially gave news commentators all sorts of confusion.

Note the tail end of a smack at Justice Breyer in the footnote continued from the previous page.

Me, Too

Here's a concurring opinion by Justice O'Connor. Concurring opinions agree with the decision or ruling of the case, but do not agree with all of the reasons for reaching that decision.

Dissenting opinions disagree with the reasoning or the result of the decision, and set out an argument for why they disagree. Note that a judge can vote against the decision without necessarily having to write an opinion explaining why.

In this case, we have ample information about why the justices voted the way they did. In addition to the opinions written by Rehnquist and O'Connor, we've got:

• Justice Thomas writing a solo concurring opinion
• Justice Stevens writing a solo dissent;
• Justice Souter writing a dissent (below), which justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, AND
• Justice Breyer writing a dissent (below), which justices Stevens and Souter joined.

Note: Chapter 9's Skillbuilder (the Supreme Court Buddy List) presents a neat interactive chart that lays out which justices are most likely to join the opinions of other justices. As for it by name!