Which opinion type is least likely to impact legal precedent?

The plurality opinion is the type of opinion that is least likely to impact legal precedent because it does not represent the views of a majority of the justices on a court. A plurality opinion arises when a court is divided such that no single opinion receives the majority of votes, yet a group of justices holds a common view that does not achieve a majority. Since the rationale of a plurality opinion is not supported by a majority, it lacks the strong authoritative weight that a majority opinion carries, which is often relied upon in future cases.

In contrast, a majority opinion has the greatest significance when it comes to establishing precedent because it reflects the consensus of the court. A per curiam opinion, which is typically issued anonymously, can also set precedent if it is authored by the court as a whole and represents a collective decision. Concurring opinions, while providing additional perspectives or reasoning from justices who agree with the majority's conclusion, still acknowledge the majority’s ruling and may influence future decisions, although they do not serve as the controlling opinion. However, the absence of a majority in a plurality opinion results in less clarity and authority for guiding future legal interpretations.