Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times offers this criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee:

I wonder how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh understand the word “ordinarily.” And I wonder why the opinion was issued per curiam — “by the court.” Did none of the five have the nerve to take ownership by signing his name?

In short-fuse election law cases before the Supreme Court, the Court routinely issues per curiam opinions, even with dissenting justices who identify themselves. Or it issues orders without reasoning without the names of individual justices who agreed with the order signed onto it, even if some may dissent (and even if some write dissenting opinions). To name a few:

• Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006): court of appeals order issued October 5, 2006, motion to reconsider denied October 9, 2006; per curiam opinion issued October 20, 2006; Justice Stevens, concurring

• Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party (2008): district court order entered October 9, 2008; application for a stay granted October 17, 2008 in per curiam opinion

• Husted v. Ohio State Conference of the NAACP (2014): application to stay filed September 25, 2014; motion to stay granted September 29, 2014; Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan would deny

• North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina (2014): application to stay filed October 2, 2014; application granted October 8, 2014; Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, dissenting

• Frank v. Walker (2014): court of appeals order issued September 12, 2014; application to vacate granted October 9, 2014; Justice Alito, with whom Justices Scalia and Thomas join, dissenting

• Veasey v. Perry (2014): court of appeals order issued October 14, 2014; motion to stay denied October 18, 2014; Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justices Sotomayor and Kagan join, dissenting

• Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted (2016): application for stay October 25, 2016; denied October 31, 2016

• Arizona Secretary of State’s Office v. Feldman (2018): court of appeals injunction issued November 4, 2016; application for stay granted November 5, 2016

• Ohio Democratic Party v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (2016): application to vacate stay November 6, 2016; denied November 7, 2016; statement of Justice Ginsburg

• Brakebill v. Jaeger (2018): court of appeals order issued September 24, 2018; motion to vacate the stay denied October 9, 2018; Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Kagan joins, dissenting

I’m sure others can find more, and I’m sure those who’ve clerked on the Supreme Court can offer more “inside baseball.” But in short-fuse election law litigation (and probably in all short-fuse litigation, to be frank!), the Court routinely issues orders without reasoning. Sometimes, it includes a short paragraph of reasoning. Occasionally, it includes a few pages of reasoning, like it did in RNC v. DNC. In all such cases with reasoning, however, it simply issues those decisions per curiam. (In cases without reasoning, it doesn’t identify who did or didn’t agree with the order. Some justices may dissent or choose not to support the order, but they may not be on record as doing so.)

This is true whether the decision is unanimous or if some justices—even if up to four justices—dissent from the Court’s decision.

I think that if this case were to reach the Supreme Court, the case was briefed on the merits, and the Supreme Court issued a full-length, reasoned decision, it would have an author identified. Rarely does the Court choose not to identify a particular author, but in those cases it seems much more deliberate (think Buckley v. Valeo or, also short-fuse but argued, Bush v. Gore).

In short-fuse election law cases, however, there’s nothing unusual with the decision to issue an order or an opinion related to an order without identifying the author.

UPDATE: Josh Blackman has similar thoughts here.