[Continued from April 2 (reply #4). ]
Stung by Taney’s words, Curtis unwisely elected to continue the futile quarrel. In a letter dated May 13, he protested the impugnment of his motives, questioned the authority of three justices to impose such a restriction without first consulting their colleagues, and suggested that it was a violation of the rules of the Court to withhold an opinion for so long a time.* He reasserted his own official right to examine an opinion of the Court that, according to reports, had been “materially altered” since its oral delivery.
*The Supreme Court’s Rule 25 (in force since 1834) declared: “All opinions delivered by the court shall, immediately upon the delivery thereof, be delivered over to the clerk to be recorded.”
Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" (1978)
Wikipedia page for Associate Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis