Moore v. Harper

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Moore v. Harper
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: December 7, 2022
Decided: June 27, 2023
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch

Moore v. Harper is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 27, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 7, 2022.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the elections clause in Article I, section 4 of the Constitution and whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election."[1]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling, holding that the state court had the authority to decide whether North Carolina's congressional district boundaries complied with state law.

    • Why it matters: If the court had ruled in favor of the petitioners, the power and authority to regulate federal elections would have become more concentrated in state legislatures and with the federal judiciary in the event of appellate review.

    After the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on December 7, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court voted to re-hear the case at the state level, which prompted SCOTUS to ask all parties to file briefs regarding its jurisdiction in the case. Click here to read more about these events.

    The case came on a writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Supreme Court. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 27, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court.
    • May 4, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court directed all parties in Moore v. Harper to file supplemental letter briefs in the case by May 11. The court's order asked the parties, "What is the effect on this Court’s jurisdiction of the April 28, 2023 order of the North Carolina Supreme Court?"[2]
    • April 28, 2023: The North Carolina Supreme Court overturned their February 4, 2022, decision that the state's enacted congressional map was unconstitutional due to partisan gerrymandering and vacated the maps the legislature enacted in 2021 and the remedial maps used for the 2022 elections.
    • March 14, 2023: The North Carolina Supreme Court re-heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper.
    • March 2, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court directed all parties in the case to file supplemental briefs by March 20, 2023, regarding SCOTUS' jurisdiction in light of the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to rehear the case.
    • February 3, 2023: The North Carolina Supreme Court voted to re-hear the case on March 14, 2023.
    • January 20, 2023: The North Carolina legislature petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to rehear Moore v. Harper. As a result of the 2022 elections, that court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority.

    • December 7, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • June 30, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • March 17, 2022: Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Timothy K. Moore (R) appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • March 7, 2022: The United States Supreme Court declined to block the enacted congressional map, with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting. In the dissent and in a concurrence by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the justices stated that the independent state legislature doctrine was an important question for the court to resolve. (Moore v. Harper).
    • February 25, 2022: Republican state legislators filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking to halt the state court's order until SCOTUS could review the case (Moore v. Harper).
    • February 23, 2022: The Wake County Superior Court issued a ruling rejecting the North Carolina General Assembly's redrawn congressional map and enacted congressional district boundaries drawn by three court-appointed redistricting special masters.[3][4]
    • February 4, 2022: The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the state's enacted congressional and legislative maps were unconstitutional which reversed the Wake County court's ruling. The state supreme court remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • January 11, 2022: The Wake County Superior Court upheld the congressional district boundaries that the legislature enacted.
    • December 8, 2021: The Supreme Court of North Carolina ordered that the state's 2022 primary election be postponed from March 8 to May 17 in response to lawsuits challenging North Carolina's newly enacted congressional and state legislative district plans.
    • November 5, 2021: A group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the legislature's enacted congressional districts, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.
    • November 4, 2021: The North Carolina General Assembly adopted new congressional district boundaries after the 2020 census.

    Background

    The case Moore v. Harper concerned the elections clause in Article I, section 4 of the Constitution and whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts.[5]

    On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.[5] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts.[5][6]

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Robin Hudson wrote:[6]

    “ Today, we answer this question: does our state constitution recognize that the people of this state have the power to choose those who govern us, by giving each of us an equally powerful voice through our vote? Or does our constitution give to members of the General Assembly, as they argue here, unlimited power to draw electoral maps that keep themselves and our members of Congress in office as long as they want, regardless of the will of the people, by making some votes more powerful than others? We hold that our constitution’s Declaration of Rights guarantees the equal power of each person’s voice in our government through voting in elections that matter.


    ... Our dissenting colleagues have overlooked the fundamental reality of this case. Rather than stepping outside of our role as judicial officers and into the policymaking realm, here we are carrying out the most fundamental of our sacred duties: protecting the constitutional rights of the people of North Carolina from overreach by the General Assembly. Rather than passively deferring to the legislature, our responsibility is to determine whether challenged legislative acts, although presumed constitutional, encumber the constitutional rights of the people of our state. Here, our responsibility is to determine whether challenged apportionment maps encumber the constitutional rights of the people to vote on equal terms and to substantially equal voting power. This role of the courts is not counter to precedent but was one of the earliest recognized. In 1787, in Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. (Mart.) 5 (1787), in a passage quoted by the dissenters, the Court held that it must step in to keep the General Assembly from taking away the state constitutional rights of the people, and “if the members of the General Assembly could do this, they might with equal authority . . . render themselves the Legislators of the State for life, without any further election of the people[,]” id. at 7. This we cannot countenance.[7]

    		”

    On February 25, 2022, prior to the state's primary election on May 17, Republican state legislators filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking to halt the state court's order until SCOTUS could review the case. The court denied the request. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. In the dissent and in a concurrence by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the justices stated that the independent state legislature doctrine was an important question for the court to resolve.[5][8][9]

    On March 17, 2022, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Timothy K. Moore (R) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case. The court granted review on June 30, 2022.

    Independent State Legislature Theory

    See also: Independent State Legislature Theory

    The issues discussed in this case are also known as the independent state legislature theory or doctrine (ISL). Independent State Legislature theory or doctrine (ISL) states that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to regulate federal elections. Since this power comes directly from the U.S. Constitution – and not state constitutions – state judges, governors, secretaries of state, and other state officials cannot intervene to change federal election rules established by state legislatures, according to the theory. Under the Constitution, checks on state legislatures’ power to regulate federal elections come from federal courts and the U.S. Congress.[10][11]

    Florida State University College of Law professor Michael Morley, a proponent of ISL, wrote, "The U.S. Constitution grants authority to both regulate congressional elections and determine the manner in which a state chooses its presidential electors specifically to the legislature of each state, rather than to the state as an entity. The independent state legislature doctrine teaches that, because a legislature derives its power over federal elections directly from the Constitution in this manner, that authority differs in certain important respects from the legislature’s general police powers that it exercises under the state constitution."[10][12]

    Vikram David Amar, a University of Illinois law professor, and Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale University law professor, who oppose ISL, wrote, "The theory invokes constitutional provisions designed to protect states against federal interference (including interference from federal courts) and instead uses these provisions to disrespect both the wishes of the state peoples who create, empower, and limit their legislatures, and the wishes of the elected legislatures themselves. The theory gives near carte blanche to federal judges, when the key point of Article II’s election language (and the companion language of Article I) was to empower states."[11]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a "fair" or "free" election.[7] ”

    Petition for writ of certiorari and initial briefs

    The petition for writ of certiorari is a formal request asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case. It generally outlines the legal reasons why the Court should consider the legal questions that the case presents.[13] Briefs in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari are filed by the opposing parties (known as respondents) and present the arguments for denying the petition along with any perceived misstatements in the original petition.[14]

    Supplemental briefs regarding North Carolina Supreme Court's actions after SCOTUS heard case

    Actions after NCSC issued ruling

    On May 4, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the parties in Moore v. Harper to file supplemental letter briefs in the case by May 11, 2023. The court's order asked the parties, "What is the effect on this Court’s jurisdiction of the April 28, 2023 order of the North Carolina Supreme Court?"[15]

    Amy Howe wrote at SCOTUSBlog, that the court "asked lawyers...to weigh in on whether the court can still hear the case in the wake of a recent ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court, which reversed its earlier decision in the underlying redistricting dispute that sparked the case...Once those briefs have been filed, the justices could dismiss the case (as one set of challengers has already suggested they should), or they could continue to decide the case on the merits."[16]

    Howe also wrote, "The timing of the justices’ decision likely could depend on the result that it reaches. An order simply dismissing the case could come relatively quickly after the supplemental briefs are filed on May 11, although such an order could take longer if it is accompanied by separate dissents or statements from one or more justices. In any event, the justices are expected to act on the case by late June or early July, when they begin their summer recess."[16]

    Click here to read the U.S. Supreme Court's May 4, 2023, order

    Links to each party's brief appear below:[17]


    Actions after NCSC decided to rehear case

    On January 20, 2023, the North Carolina legislature petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to rehear Moore v. Harper in state court, and on February 3, 2023, the state supreme court voted to re-hear the case. As a result of the 2022 elections, the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority.

    On March 2, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court directed all parties to file supplemental briefs by March 20, 2023, regarding SCOTUS' jurisdiction in light of the state supreme court's decision to rehear the case.

    The briefs outlined each party's view on whether SCOTUS still had jurisdiction in light of the state court's decision to re-hear the case. Reuters' Joseph Ax wrote that "If the justices decide they no longer have jurisdiction, they could dismiss the case without issuing a ruling."[18] Amy Howe wrote at SCOTUSblog, “Lawyers involved in [Moore v. Harper] disagreed on Monday about whether the Supreme Court has the power to reach a decision in the case.”[19]

    • The legislators that brought the case told the justices the Court should decide on the case. In their brief, the group said, "the North Carolina Supreme Court decision to rehear [the case] had no effect on this Court’s continued jurisdiction.”[20]
    • Attorneys representing the state of North Carolina wrote, "The State's 2022 congressional elections have already taken place under the state court's interim map, and Petitioners will suffer no prejudice from letting the ordinary appeals process play out...Although the Court has already received briefing and heard oral argument in this case...The decisions on review are nonfinal, and this Court should therefore dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction."[21]


    Links to each party's brief appear below:[22]

    Petition for writ of certiorari

    Below are excerpts from North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore's petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court:[23]

    “ REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT


    The North Carolina Supreme Court’s actions nullify the North Carolina General Assembly’s regulations of the manner of holding federal elections in the State and replace them with new regulations of the 14 judiciary’s design. Those actions are fundamentally irreconcilable with the Constitution’s Elections Clause. To secure self-government, that provision vests the power to regulate federal senate and congressional elections in each State’s legislature, subject only to supervision by Congress. The state supreme court’s usurpation of that authority—pursuant to vague and indeterminate state constitutional provisions securing free speech, equal protection, and free and fair elections—simply cannot be squared with the lines drawn by the Elections Clause. The state judiciary’s actions raise profoundly important issues that have divided the lower courts, that have been repeatedly presented to this Court for review, and that will continue to recur until this Court finally resolves them.

    ... This case finally presents the Court with “an opportune occasion” to resolve, once and for all, the festering issue of a state legislature’s authority, under the Elections Clause, to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections free from interference by other state branches and entities. Moore, 142 S. Ct. at 1090. (Alito, J., dissenting from the denial of application for stay). The Court should grant the writ and end the conflict in the lower courts over this critical question of nationwide importance.

    ... The short of it is this: the decisions by the courts below to nullify the General Assembly’s chosen “Regulations” of the “Manner of holding Elections,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and to replace them with new regulations of their own, discretionary design, simply cannot be squared with the text and original meaning of the Elections Clause, nor with this Court’s interpretation of it.[7]

    		”

    Brief in Opposition

    Below are excerpts from the Harper respondents in opposition to Moore's petition for writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court:[24]

    “ REASONS TO DENY THE PETITION


    Certiorari should be denied for numerous reasons. This Court lacks jurisdiction because the petition seeks review of interlocutory orders, including an order of the state trial court that is currently on appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Beyond that, this case is a poor vehicle to address whether the federal Elections Clause forbids state courts from reviewing the constitutional validity of legislatively enacted congressional plans, because statutes enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly specifically authorize state courts to do so. In all events, Petitioners’ Elections Clause theory lacks merit. It is contrary to the constitutional text and history, over a century of this Court’s precedent, and settled federalism principles recognizing the unfettered prerogative of state supreme courts to interpret their own state constitutions. Petitioners’ newfound argument that the Elections Clause allows state legislatures to disregard some but not all provisions of state constitutions in regulating federal elections does not warrant this Court’s plenary review.

    ... Jurisdictional and vehicle problems aside, the decisions below were correct as a matter of text, history, precedent, and constitutional structure. Nothing in the Elections Clause permits a state legislature to violate the state constitution, as construed by the state’s highest court, in enacting congressional redistricting legislation—no more than it permits Congress to ignore this Court’s decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution. This Court has so held many times, and Petitioners present no persuasive argument for revisiting those holdings.

    ... The unprecedented holding Petitioners seek would upend this nation’s federalist system and threaten to nullify dozens of state constitutional provisions across the country. For example, nearly every state’s constitution contains provisions affording citizens the right to vote if they meet specified qualifications. Other states have more recently adopted state constitutional provisions guaranteeing voting rights in all elections, relying on the settled principle that state constitutions can provide broader or more specific protections for voting rights than the U.S. Constitution.[7]

    		”

    Amicus briefs

    An amicus curiae is a person or group who is not a party to a legal action, but has a strong interest in the matter and has petitioned the court to submit a brief offering relevant information or arguments.[25][26] All parties in Moore v. Harper consented in July 2022 and August 2022 to the filing of such amicus briefs.[27]

    As of the case's oral argument, 70 amicus briefs were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in this case, with 17 filed in support of the petitioners, 48 filed in support of the respondents, and five in support of neither party.[27][28] Each brief listed below can be viewed by clicking on the name of the amicus curiae. (Note: The petitioners are those parties asking the court to rule that state legislatures can regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, and the respondents are parties opposed to a ruling that state legislatures can regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts.)



    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[29]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[30]

    Media coverage

    This section includes links and excerpts from articles related to the case.

    Coverage after SCOTUS issued ruling

    This section includes a selection of articles published in the two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court published its ruling in the case.

    Click the link in the "Title" column of the charts below to access the article.

    Post-ruling media coverage
    Publisher Writer Title Publication date
    SCOTUSblog Amy Howe Supreme Court rules against North Carolina Republicans over election law theory June 27, 2023
    Washington Examiner Kaelan Deese Supreme Court rules against North Carolina GOP in congressional map fight June 27, 2023
    Bloomberg Greg Stohr Supreme Court Rejects GOP Bid to Transform Federal Election Law June 27, 2023
    Reason Ilya Somin Steve Calabresi on Moore v. Harper June 28, 2023
    NPR Hansi Lo Wang What the Supreme Court's rejection of a controversial theory means for elections June 30, 2023
    Lawfare John Sullivan Baker & Brandon Broukhim Moore v. Harper Explained July 3, 2023

    Coverage after oral argument

    This section includes a selection of articles published in the two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case.

    Click the link in the "Title" column of the charts below to access the article.

    Media coverage after oral argument
    Publisher Writer Title Publication date
    Bloomberg Law Greg Stohr Supreme Court Struggles to Limit Case Aiming to Give States Ability to Upend Election Law December 7, 2022
    Howe on the Court Amy L Howe Court seems unwilling to embrace broad version of “independent state legislature” theory December 7, 2022
    American Legislative Exchange Council Catherine Mortensen States Legislatures, Not Courts, Have Authority Over Federal Elections in their States: ALEC Attorneys December 9, 2022
    Bloomberg Law Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson Justices, Advocates Look to Different Histories in Voting Case December 9, 2022
    The New York Times The Editorial Board This Case Should Never Have Made It to the Supreme Court December 9, 2022
    Justia Vikram David Amar Post-Argument Analysis in the Moore v. Harper Case Raising the So-Called “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) Theory: What Might the Court Do? December 13, 2022
    National Constitution Center Vikram Amar, Jason Torchinsky, & Jeffrey Rosen The Supreme Court Considers the Independent State Legislature Theory (podcast) December 15, 2022
    Pennsylvania Capital-Star Bruce Ledewitz The one good thing about the independent state legislature theory December 16, 2022

    Coverage before oral argument

    This section includes a selection of articles published before the U.S. Supreme Court hear oral arguments in the case.

    Click the link in the "Title" column of the charts below to access the article.

    Media coverage before oral argument
    Publisher Writer Title Publication date
    SCOTUSblog Amy Howe Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections June 30, 2022
    Above the Law Joe Patrice Just An FYI, The Supreme Court Is Going To Cancel Democratic Elections Next Year June 30, 2022
    National Public Radio (NPR) Hansi Lo Wang How the Supreme Court could radically reshape elections for president and Congress June 30, 2022
    The New York Times Adam Liptak Supreme Court to Hear Case on State Legislatures’ Power Over Elections June 30, 2022
    The Washington Post Robert Barnes Supreme Court to review state legislatures’ power in federal elections June 30, 2022
    Vox Ian Millhiser A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6 June 30, 2022
    Slate Richard L. Hasen It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear June 30, 2022
    Forbes Alison Durkee Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Make It Easier To Overturn Elections June 30, 2022
    Bloomberg Greg Stohr US Supreme Court to Weigh Election-Law Overhaul in Voting-Map Case June 30, 2022
    News & Observer Will Doran Supreme Court will hear NC case with 2024 presidential election implications June 30, 2022
    Washington Times Alex Swoyer Supreme Court to hear two election cases next term, progressives warn it could ‘upend’ democracy July 22, 2022
    National Review Carrie Campbell Severino Unpacking the Left’s Disinformation Campaign about Moore v. Harper August 31, 2022
    POLITICO Ethan Herenstein & Brian Palmer Fraudulent Document Cited in Supreme Court Bid to Torch Election Law September 15, 2022
    ABA Journal Debra Cassens Weiss State chief justices oppose 'independent state legislature' theory in Supreme Court election case September 8, 2022
    Reason Will Baude The Constitutional State Legislature Doctrine October 13, 2022
    Amicus Dahlia Lithwick The Supreme Court Case That Could Upend Democracy October 22, 2022
    5-4 Pod Prologue Projects Independent State Legislature Theory October 25, 2022
    Washington Examiner Kaelan Deese Supreme Court wrestles with 'independent state legislature' theory in election case December 7, 2022

    Media narratives

    Below are excerpts from pre-ruling media coverage that described the issues regarding the case after the Supreme Court granted certiorari:


    • Amy Howe at Howe on the Court:
    "The doctrine at the heart of the case is known as the 'independent state legislature' theory – the idea that, under the Constitution, only the legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts. Proponents of the theory point to the Constitution’s elections clause, which gives state legislatures the power to set the 'Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.'"
    "Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist was an early proponent of the theory. In a concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 case that halted the recount in Florida in the presidential election, Rehnquist (in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) outlined his view that the state court’s recount conflicted with the deadlines set by the state legislature for the election."
    "The issue returned to the Supreme Court in 2020, when the justices turned down a request by Pennsylvania Republicans to fast-track their challenge to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that required state election officials to count mail-in ballots received within three days of Election Day. In an opinion that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch) suggested that the state supreme court’s decision to extend the deadline for counting ballots likely violated the Constitution."[31]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court held that it had jurisdiction to rule in the case, regardless of whether the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its original decision (referred to as Harper I) that the state's congressional district boundaries violated the state constitution.[32] The court's opinion stated, "This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal Elections Clause issue...The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to withdraw Harper II and overrule Harper I does not moot this case."[32]

    The court also affirmed the initial decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court which overturned the state's 2021 congressional map, holding that "State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause."[32] Although the state supreme court later reversed its decision, the court upheld the state court's authority to decide whether the district boundaries complied with state law. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court.[32]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[32]

    “ The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections...When state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.


    The precedents of this Court have long rejected the view that legislative action under the Elections Clause is purely federal in character, governed only by restraints found in the Federal Constitution. The argument to the contrary does not account for the Framers’ understanding that when legislatures make laws, they are bound by the provisions of the very documents that give them life. Thus, when a state legislature carries out its federal constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, it acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution, and as the entity assigned particular authority by the Federal Constitution. Both constitutions restrain the state legislature’s exercise of power. [7]

    		”
    —Chief Justice John Roberts

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[32]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion in full. The Court today correctly concludes that state laws governing federal elections are subject to ordinary state court review, including for compliance with the relevant state constitution. Ante, at 15, 26, 29. But because the Elections Clause assigns authority respecting federal elections to state legislatures, the Court also correctly concludes that “state courts do not have free rein” in conducting that review. Ante, at 26. Therefore, a state court’s interpretation of state law in a case implicating the Elections Clause is subject to federal court review. Ante, at 26–30; see also Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U. S. 70, 76–78 (2000) (unanimously concluding that a state court’s interpretation of state law in a federal election case presents a federal issue); cf. Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature, 592 U. S. ___, ___, n. 1 (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in denial of application to vacate stay) (slip op., at 9, n. 1). Federal court review of a state court’s interpretation of state law in a federal election case “does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 115 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J.,

    concurring).[7]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito as to Part I.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[32]

    “ This Court sits “to resolve not questions and issues but ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’” Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U. S. 125, 132 (2011); see U. S. Const., Art. III, §1. As a corollary of that basic constitutional principle, the Court “is without power to decide moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it.” St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41, 42 (1943) (per curiam). To do so would be to violate “the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 96 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    The opinion that the Court releases today breaks that thread. It “affirms” an interlocutory state-court judgment that has since been overruled and supplanted by a final judgment resolving all claims in petitioners’ favor. The issue on which it opines—a federal defense to claims already dismissed on other grounds—can no longer affect the judgment in this litigation in any way. As such, the question is indisputably moot, and today’s majority opinion is plainly advisory. Because the writ of certiorari should be dismissed, I respectfully dissent.[7]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[33]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "21-1271 MOORE V. HARPER QUESTIONS PRESENTED:," June 30, 2022
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "ORDER IN PENDING CASE," May 4, 2023
    3. ↑ Wake County Superior Court, "North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc., et al., v. Hall, et al.," February 23, 2022
    4. ↑ WRAL, "Former judges chosen to review new election maps in NC redistricting case," February 16, 2022
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 SCOTUSblog, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 North Carolina Supreme Court, Harper et al. v. Hall, et al., decided February 14, 2022
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Moore v. Harper on application for stay; Kavanaugh, B., concurring," decided March 7, 2022
    9. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Moore v. Harper on application for stay; Alito, J., dissenting," decided March 7, 2022
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Fordham Law Review, "Independent state legislature doctrine," accessed November 2022
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 AkhilAmar.com, "Eradicating Bush-league Arguments Root And Branch: The Article II Independent-state-legislature Notion And Related Rubbish," accessed November 2022
    12. ↑ AkhilAmar.com, "Eradicating Bush-league Arguments Root And Branch: The Article II Independent-state-legislature Notion And Related Rubbish," accessed November 2022
    13. ↑ United States Courts, "Supreme Court Procedures," accessed November 30, 2022
    14. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Supreme Court Rules—Rule 15. Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs; Supplemental Briefs," accessed November 30, 2022
    15. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "ORDER IN PENDING CASE," May 4, 2023
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 SCOTUSBlog, "Justices call for further briefing in major election law case," May 4, 2023
    17. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Moore v. Harper," accessed May 15, 2023
    18. ↑ Reuters, "North Carolina's top court hears redistricting case with national implications," March 14, 2023
    19. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case," March 20, 2023
    20. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Moore v. Harper, Case No. 21-1271," March 20, 2023
    21. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271," March 20, 2023
    22. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Moore v. Harper," accessed March 22, 2023
    23. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Moore et al. v. Harper, et al., March 17, 2022
    24. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Moore et al. v. Harper, et al., May 20, 2022
    25. ↑ Cornell Law School, "Legal Information Institute - amicus curiae," accessed September 22, 2022
    26. ↑ Smith Gambrell Russell, "Why and When to File an Amicus Brief," accessed September 22, 2022
    27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 The American Redistricting Project, "Moore v. Harper (Formerly Harper v. Hall)," accessed September 22, 2022
    28. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Moore v. Harper," accessed November 1, 2022
    29. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 7, 2022
    30. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued DATE
    31. ↑ Howe on the Court, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
    32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.6 U.S. Supreme Court, “Moore, in his Official Capacity as Speaker of The North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Harper et al.," "Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,” accessed June 27, 2023
    33. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Moore_v._Harper&oldid=9204245"