Hacker News Reader

Comment by iaw | Hacker News Reader

I'm kind of stupid about the SCOTUS, what does it mean that "Alito concurred in the result but not in the argument?"

Edit: Thank you for the explanations, especially the fact that they aren't strict yes-no votes (that makes a ton of sense now).

View on HN

He thinks that the majority reached the right conclusion (the result - that the defendants were entitled to the money) but not for the right reason (the particular argument that the majority opinion made)

SCOTUS rulings are not yes-no votes. There are any number of opinions written and justices who took part in the case (usually all of them) will sign on to one of these opinions, while sometimes noting that they largely agree with another one. I didn't look up this particular case but usually that sentence means that there were at least two opinions written: one agreed by a plurality, one by Alito, and zero or more additional opinions (at least one if there were any dissents). It means that Alito's opinion amounted to the same yes-no answer(s) as the majority but he was unwilling to say he agreed with their actual written opinion.

Thank you for this explanation, that makes a lot of sense.

A priori civil forfeiture goes against this countries values but the legal logic in the majority opinion seems like it has some problematic aspects which is why Thomas dissented and Alito agreed but with stipulations.

"I agree with the decision, but I came to my decision via different logic."

It means he agrees that the money should be returned, but not for the same reasons that the other justices gave. So he'll have his own section in the judgement explaining his own reasoning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com