A more thorough explanation:

A concurring opinion is a type of judicial opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but differs in reasoning or rationale. Instead of joining the majority, the concurring judge will write a separate opinion explaining the basis for their decision.

Concurring opinions are not binding since they did not receive the majority of the court's support, but they can be used as persuasive material by lawyers. In some rare cases, a concurring opinion may eventually become law.

In the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed with the majority's decision but disagreed with their reasoning. He argued that the Court should have relied on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment instead of the Due Process Clause.

This example illustrates how a concurring opinion can agree with the outcome of a case but differ in the legal reasoning behind it.