Courting Confusion with Multiple Opinions in a Land Use Case

Abstract

When the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court write five separate opinions, as they did in Metromedia v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981), 33 ZD 238, the Court fails in its primary responsibility to provide an authoritative statement of legal principle to govern and guide the lower courts, governments, citizens, and the bar. The growing tendency of the U.S. Supreme Court, and many of the highest state courts as well, to forsake majority opinions—and indulge in disconnected concurring expressions by individual Justices—clearly weakens the effectiveness of American courts.