In the legal context, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by a judge or justice of a court that agrees with the decision reached in a case but for different reasons than those stated in the majority opinion.
Concurring opinions are often used to express a judge’s own views on the legal principles or policy issues involved in a case, or to offer additional guidance on how the decision should be applied in future cases.
For example, suppose a court is deciding a case involving the constitutionality of a particular law. The majority of the judges may decide to uphold the law, finding that it does not violate the Constitution. One of the judges may agree with the outcome of the case, but may write a concurring opinion explaining that they believe the law is constitutional for different reasons than those stated in the majority opinion.