At the New Reform Club, Seth Barrett Tillman: Must Article III Courts Issue Explanations for their Orders? Core conclusion:
The issuance of opinions by courts is a convention or tradition of the American judicial system, but such opinions are not mandated by the express text of Article III, by any federal statute, or even by any federal judicial decision. In short, in the American judicial system, orders are primary, not opinions.
And from later on:
I might add that any duty or aspirational norm regarding a court of record putting forward an opinion or otherwise advancing a reasoned explanation for an order falls heaviest on final judgments, and only to a lesser extent on interim orders prior to a substantive review on the merits. It is not as if every trial court regularly produces (or even could produce) a written explanation in regard to every hearsay or other objection. Frequently, such courts merely rule and do not put forward any reasoning, even orally. And certainly, discovery orders, although sometimes issued as speaking orders, often come absent advancing any rationale for the relief granted and the relief denied. All this is well known to trial court practitioners, even if this issue is left somewhat unclear in academic casebooks reviewing primarily (or, perhaps, only) appellate caselaw.
UNRELATED, BUT ALSO OF INTEREST FROM PROFESSOR TILLMAN:
A Response to Professor Jack Rakove (New Reform Club) (regarding emoluments)
Posted at 12:38 AM