Although rare, 4-4 ties are hardly unheard-of—justices do recuse themselves from time to time. A split decision effectively upholds the ruling of the lower court (presumably a state supreme court). In the event of such a tie, the court typically issues what's known as a per curiam decision. The opinion in such a decision is issued under the court's name, as opposed to consisting of a majority and a minority opinion. Justices, however, may attach dissenting opinions to the per curiam decision if they like—as happened in Bush v. Gore.

When a 4-4 deadlock does occur, the case is not deemed to have set any sort of precedent. Tradition holds that the court's per curiam opinion in such ties is usually very, very terse, often consisting of no more than a single sentence: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court." But it's a safe bet that the opinion in Kerry v. Bush or Bush v. Kerry would be a lot longer than usual.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/11/what_happens_in_ascotus_tie.html

still_one

(92,219 posts)

12. Which is what someone else said in the thread, the lower court decision stands

Reply to LiberalArkie (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:27 PM

Feb 2016

LiberalArkie

(15,719 posts)

14. By the time I found it and posted it and saved it, well you know the rest of the story

Reply to still_one (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:29 PM

Feb 2016

still_one

(92,219 posts)

17. anyway thanks. I knew we had the expertise in the know

Reply to LiberalArkie (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:31 PM

Feb 2016

Nailzberg

(4,610 posts)

8. It affirms the lower court's decision. But its not its own decision.

Reply to still_one (Original post)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:26 PM

Feb 2016

LynnTTT

(362 posts)

9. I thought I heard on CNN

Reply to still_one (Original post)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:26 PM

Feb 2016

that in the case, the decision reverts back to the last federal ruling?
I want to know what happens when the Senate refuses to confirm any nomination, then Hillary wins the Presidency but the Senate is still Republican. Does that mean we never get justices. And say another justice dies? The Senate gets to refuse to confirm forever.?

still_one

(92,219 posts)

13. Constitutional crisis?

Reply to LynnTTT (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:28 PM

Feb 2016

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)

18. It sits vacant until someone is confirmed

Reply to LynnTTT (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:33 PM

Feb 2016

There isn't even any constitutional rule that there has to be 9 justices. The Congress can actually change the number.

former9thward

(32,025 posts)

10. A majority of SC decisions are unanimous.

Reply to still_one (Original post)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:27 PM

Feb 2016

Despite the perception. A 4-4 vote just means what ever the lower court said stands (as a lower court decision, not a SC decision).

Depaysement

(1,835 posts)

11. No.

Reply to still_one (Original post)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:27 PM

Feb 2016

The Courts of Appeals decision or (rare) State Supreme Court decision stands.

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)

15. The lower court deicison stands and no precedent is set

Reply to still_one (Original post)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:29 PM

Feb 2016

It's that simple. If it is 4-4, whatever the lower court decision was is what remains in force. But a future court can revisit the case without that decision impacting it.

skip fox

(19,359 posts)

19. It gets doubly interesting when you look at the complexion of a 8 person court.

Reply to still_one (Original post)

Sat Feb 13, 2016, 07:37 PM

Feb 2016

4 fairly steady liberal voices, 2-3 steady conservative voices, and at least one who might stray.

This may be one of the reasons the Senate confirms one of Obama's nominees. They'll get tired of 5-3 decisions always going against them. It's like the house's percentage of "luck" in Vegas. There will either be ties or loses. No victories. And they can't slow down the lower courts, so . . . . Well, they're stuck again.

still_one

(92,219 posts)

20. I think you are being way too optimistic. There are those on the judiciary committee who will