# SCOTUS refuses to hear case.  Is that a defacto decision?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-hear-case-is-that-a-defacto-decision/286455>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [January 24, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-hear-case-is-that-a-defacto-decision/286455 "2005-01-24T19:53:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-hear-case-is-that-a-defacto-decision/286455/21 "2005-01-25T20:19:58Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> “One characteristic of all opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari is manifest. They are totally unnecessary. They are examples of the purest form of dicta, since they have even less legal significance than the orders of the entire Court which, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter reiterated again and again, have no precedential significance at all. “Another attribute of these opinions is that they are potentially misleading. Since the Court provides no explanation of the reasons for denying certiorari, the dissenter’s arguments in favor of a grant are not answered and therefore typically appear to be more persuasive than most other opinions. Moreover, since they often omit any reference to valid reasons for denying certiorari, they tend to imply that the Court has been unfaithful to its responsibilities or has implicitly reached a decision on the merits when, in fact, there is no basis for such an inference.” Singleton v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 940, 944—945 (1978) (Stevens, J., opinion respecting denial of certiorari).

[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1407.ZA.html](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1407.ZA.html)

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-refuses-to-hear-case-is-that-a-defacto-decision/286455.md?page=1)