A Rule 36 affirmance offers no explanation of the court's decision, other than recording that the court agrees with the judgment of the lower tribunal. Indeed, "a Rule 36 judgment simply confirms that the trial court entered the correct judgment.
A Rule 36 is judgment “does not endorse or reject any specific part of the trial court's reasoning” and is non-precedential, i.e., not binding on the Court. It is only binding on the parties. Generally, these judgments are handed down shortly after the Court hears oral arguments.
The above quotes are just two of many that a quick search will find. Personally, I think it's a bit of a cop out since the court does not explain their underlying thought process and why they upheld the district court decision.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
