<P> Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides . A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue . </P> <P> The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa . At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion . While working for the Justice Department, present - day Chief Justice John Roberts--a former Rehnquist law clerk--wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London . Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority . Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion . Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined . In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position . In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees . An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld . </P> <P> A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion . Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints . Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases . John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education . </P> <P> After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case . For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear - cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court . In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)--saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case . As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation . </P>

A supreme court justice who does not agree with the majority decision can submit