Moore v. Harper
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.
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.
|
” |
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:
|
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]
- March 17, 2022 Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- May 20, 2022 Brief in Opposition of Respondents North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc., et al.
- May 20, 2022 Brief in Opposition by State Respondents
- May 20, 2022 Brief in Opposition of Respondent Common Cause
- May 20, 2022 Brief for Harper Respondents in Opposition
- May 27, 2022 Reply Brief for Petitioners
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]
- Supplemental letter brief of the United States as amicus curiae
- Supplemental letter brief of respondents Rebecca Harper, et al.
- Supplemental letter brief of petitioners
- Supplemental letter brief of respondent Common Cause
- Letter Brief of North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.
- Supplemental Brief of State Respondents
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]
- Supplemental letter brief of Timothy Moore, et al.
- Supplemental Letter Brief of Rebecca Harper, et al.
- Supplemental Brief of State Respondents
- Supplemental Letter Brief of North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.
- Supplemental letter brief of United States
- Supplemental letter brief of Common Cause
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
|
” |
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
|
” |
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.)
Amicus briefs filed in Moore v. Harper in support of Neither Party[27] | ||
---|---|---|
Date | Amicus Curiae | |
September 2, 2022 | John R. Ashcroft, Secretary of State of Missouri | |
September 2, 2022 | Wisconsin Voter Alliance and Pure Integrity Michigan Elections | |
September 6, 2022 | Group of New York Voters | |
September 6, 2022 | Conference of Chief Justices | |
September 6, 2022 | Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission |
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.
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 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.
|
” |
—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).
|
” |
—Justice Clarence Thomas |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
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
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Moore v. Harper (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Moore v. Harper
- Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "21-1271 MOORE V. HARPER QUESTIONS PRESENTED:," June 30, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "ORDER IN PENDING CASE," May 4, 2023
- ↑ Wake County Superior Court, "North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc., et al., v. Hall, et al.," February 23, 2022
- ↑ WRAL, "Former judges chosen to review new election maps in NC redistricting case," February 16, 2022
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 North Carolina Supreme Court, Harper et al. v. Hall, et al., decided February 14, 2022
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Moore v. Harper on application for stay; Kavanaugh, B., concurring," decided March 7, 2022
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Moore v. Harper on application for stay; Alito, J., dissenting," decided March 7, 2022
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Fordham Law Review, "Independent state legislature doctrine," accessed November 2022
- ↑ 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
- ↑ AkhilAmar.com, "Eradicating Bush-league Arguments Root And Branch: The Article II Independent-state-legislature Notion And Related Rubbish," accessed November 2022
- ↑ United States Courts, "Supreme Court Procedures," accessed November 30, 2022
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Supreme Court Rules—Rule 15. Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs; Supplemental Briefs," accessed November 30, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "ORDER IN PENDING CASE," May 4, 2023
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 SCOTUSBlog, "Justices call for further briefing in major election law case," May 4, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Moore v. Harper," accessed May 15, 2023
- ↑ Reuters, "North Carolina's top court hears redistricting case with national implications," March 14, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case," March 20, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Moore v. Harper, Case No. 21-1271," March 20, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271," March 20, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Moore v. Harper," accessed March 22, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Moore et al. v. Harper, et al., March 17, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Moore et al. v. Harper, et al., May 20, 2022
- ↑ Cornell Law School, "Legal Information Institute - amicus curiae," accessed September 22, 2022
- ↑ Smith Gambrell Russell, "Why and When to File an Amicus Brief," accessed September 22, 2022
- ↑ 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
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Moore v. Harper," accessed November 1, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 7, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued DATE
- ↑ Howe on the Court, "Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections," June 30, 2022
- ↑ 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
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
|