Meaning: The quote "In a number of cases dissenting opinions have in time become the law" by Judge Charles Evans Hughes speaks to the idea that dissenting opinions, or minority viewpoints expressed by judges in court cases, may eventually be adopted as the prevailing law. Judge Hughes, who served as the Chief Justice of the United States from 1930 to 1941, was known for his influential decisions and insightful legal philosophy.

The concept of dissenting opinions playing a role in shaping the law is fundamental to the functioning of common law legal systems, where judicial decisions contribute to the development and interpretation of law. When a court case is heard by multiple judges, they may not always reach a unanimous decision. In such instances, judges who disagree with the majority ruling have the opportunity to express their dissenting opinion, outlining their reasons for disagreeing with the majority's decision.

Dissenting opinions serve several important functions within the legal system. Firstly, they provide a platform for judges to articulate alternative viewpoints and interpretations of the law. This can be crucial in cases where the law is complex or open to different interpretations, as it allows for a more comprehensive exploration of legal principles. Additionally, dissenting opinions can serve as a check on the majority's power, ensuring that minority perspectives are given consideration and potentially influencing future legal developments.

The quote by Judge Hughes implies that dissenting opinions are not merely relegated to the realm of minority viewpoints, but rather have the potential to influence the evolution of the law over time. This idea is supported by historical examples where dissenting opinions have indeed played a significant role in shaping legal principles and precedents.

One notable example of a dissenting opinion that became the law is Justice Harlan's dissent in the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In this case, the majority upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. However, Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent argued that the Constitution should be color-blind and that the segregation of races perpetuated inequality. While initially a dissenting opinion, Justice Harlan's views eventually gained traction and were adopted by the Supreme Court in its 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

Another example of a dissenting opinion shaping the law is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919). In this case, the majority upheld the convictions of individuals who distributed leaflets protesting U.S. intervention in the Russian Revolution. Justice Holmes' dissent, in which he articulated a broader interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of free speech, laid the groundwork for the expansion of free speech rights in subsequent cases.

These examples illustrate how dissenting opinions can have a lasting impact on the development of the law. Over time, societal attitudes, legal scholarship, and evolving interpretations of constitutional principles can lead to the acceptance of dissenting views as the prevailing law.

The quote by Judge Hughes serves as a reminder of the dynamic nature of the law and the role of dissenting opinions in shaping legal discourse. It underscores the importance of considering minority viewpoints within the judiciary and legal community, as they may ultimately contribute to the evolution of legal principles and the protection of individual rights.

In conclusion, the quote "In a number of cases dissenting opinions have in time become the law" by Judge Charles Evans Hughes encapsulates the idea that dissenting opinions, while initially in the minority, have the potential to influence and shape the law over time. This concept is supported by historical examples where dissenting opinions have played a pivotal role in the development of legal principles and the protection of fundamental rights. It serves as a testament to the dynamic nature of the legal system and the enduring impact of thoughtful dissent within the judiciary.