Final answer:
Justices agreeing with the majority's decision but not with their reasoning typically file a concurring opinion to state their distinct legal perspective while still concurring with the case's verdict.
Step-by-step explanation:
Justices who agree with the majority decision but disagree with the legal reasoning will likely file a concurring opinion. Justices agreeing with the majority's decision but not with their reasoning typically file a concurring opinion to state their distinct legal perspective while still concurring with the case's verdict.
The majority opinion expresses the Court’s rationale for the decision based on precedent and related cases. A justice may write a concurring opinion to emphasize different legal reasons for agreeing with the outcome.
Conversely, justices in the minority write dissenting opinions, which are significant as they can influence future cases and illustrate the decision-making process in the Court. Writing a concurring opinion allows a justice to express their unique stance while still concurring with the verdict of the case.