142 S.Ct. 1089
SCOTUS2022Background
- After North Carolina gained a House seat in 2021, the General Assembly enacted two congressional district maps; the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected both as partisan gerrymanders and ordered a court-drawn map for the 2022 elections.
- North Carolina legislative leaders (applicants) sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the state-court orders and require use of the Legislature’s maps for the 2022 primary and general elections.
- The application for a stay was presented to the Chief Justice and referred to the Court; the Court denied the stay on March 7, 2022.
- Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the denial: he agreed the Elections Clause issue is important and merits certiorari in an appropriate case, but he concluded that Purcell timing principles made it too late to change maps for the 2022 elections.
- Justice Alito (joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch) dissented from the denial: he would have granted the stay, reasoning the Elections Clause vests rulemaking for federal elections in the State legislature and that the applicants were likely to prevail and would be irreparably harmed.
- The dispute centers on the scope of state-court authority to reject or supplant legislature-drawn rules for federal elections under the Elections Clause (Art. I §4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state supreme court may reject or replace a legislature's congressional-election rules under the Elections Clause | State Legislature exclusively prescribes Times, Places, and Manner for federal elections; state court usurped legislative power | State courts interpret and apply state constitutions and laws; their rulings on state law are authoritative | Stay denied; Supreme Court did not decide merits. Alito dissent: would grant stay and likely reach merits; Kavanaugh concurred in denial on timing grounds |
| Whether Purcell (avoid last-minute federal changes to election rules) forbids federal relief changing maps before 2022 elections | A prompt stay would be minimally disruptive and would not prejudice election administration | Purcell counsels against federal courts altering state election rules close to an election; too late to reorder maps | Denial (Kavanaugh concurrence emphasized Purcell and timing) |
| Whether applicants satisfied stay factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, public interest) | Applicants likely to succeed on federal-law Elections Clause claim; irreparable injury to legislative prerogative; public interest favors correct allocation of constitutional authority | State-law interpretation by state supreme court controls; timing and election-administration concerns outweigh claimed harms | Denied; dissent (Alito) concluded applicants met stay factors and would grant relief |
| Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to resolve recurring Elections Clause question | The question is important and recurring; Court should grant certiorari in an appropriate case | No barrier to Supreme Court review in an appropriately timed case; but not resolve on emergency stay application | Concurrence (Kavanaugh) urged grant of certiorari in an appropriate case; stay application denied without resolving merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam) (federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules close to an election)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (federal review of state election rules can present federal constitutional questions)
- Merrill v. Milligan, 595 U.S. _ (2022) (Kavanaugh concurrence referencing timing limits on ordering map changes close to elections)
- Dickson v. Rucho, 368 N.C. 481 (N.C. 2015) (state-court precedent holding partisan-gerrymandering challenge lacked a justiciable standard under state law)