Moore v. Harper
600 U.S. 1
SCOTUS
2023

Background

  • After the 2020 census North Carolina’s General Assembly enacted new 2021 congressional (and legislative) maps; plaintiffs sued in state court claiming the congressional map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the North Carolina Constitution.
  • A three-judge trial court found the map a partisan outlier but declined relief as nonjusticiable; the North Carolina Supreme Court (Harper I) reversed, held partisan-gerrymandering claims justiciable under state law, rejected an Elections Clause defense, and enjoined use of the 2021 maps.
  • The General Assembly adopted remedial maps; the trial court rejected them and adopted Special Masters’ interim maps; the North Carolina Supreme Court issued Harper II on remedy, then granted rehearing, withdrew Harper II and issued a later opinion (Harper III) overruling Harper I on justiciability and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice (but did not simply reinstate the 2021 maps).
  • The legislative defendants sought emergency relief and certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court; after supplemental briefing this Court held it had jurisdiction to review Harper I and reached the merits.
  • On the merits the Court held the Elections Clause does not preclude state courts from applying state constitutional constraints to state legislatures’ exercise of Elections-Clause authority; state courts remain subject to ordinary judicial review but federal courts retain a supervisory role to ensure state courts do not usurp the legislature’s assigned role; the Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment (as presented) but did not decide whether that court exceeded permissible bounds of review.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1. Jurisdiction / mootness — whether SCOTUS can decide after NC Supreme Court reheard and overruled Harper I Harper (plaintiffs) argued the rehearing and final dismissal mooted the federal question Moore (legislative defendants) argued Harper I’s judgment enjoining the 2021 maps remained binding and this Court can provide complete relief Court: jurisdiction exists — Harper I finally decided the federal issue and its injunction still binds parties; Article III and 28 U.S.C. §1257(a) jurisdictional path is satisfied
2. Scope of Elections Clause — whether it vests state legislatures with exclusive, independent authority immune from state-law constraints Harper: state courts may review legislative redistricting under state constitutions and enforce state constitutional limits Moore: "Legislature" in Clause means state legislatures act free from state-constitutional constraints on federal-election rules Court: Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from ordinary state-constitutional restraints or from state-court review; legislatures act subject to their state constitutions
3. Procedural vs substantive state constraints — are only procedural constraints (e.g., veto, referendum) permissible? Harper: state constitutional provisions (including substantive constraints) can limit legislature’s exercise of Elections-Clause power Moore: Smiley/Hildebrant permit only procedural restraints; substantive limits would conflict with federal delegation Court: No clean procedure/substance divide in precedents; Smiley/Hildebrant/Arizona reject that limited reading and historical practice supports state constraints generally
4. Federal review of state-court interpretations — what role do federal courts have reviewing state courts’ application of state law in Elections-Clause cases? Harper: state courts are proper forums to enforce state constitutional limits; federal interference should be limited Moore: federal courts should defer heavily or lack authority to second-guess state-court interpretations here Court: Federal courts retain duty to ensure state-court interpretations do not arrogate the legislature’s federal Elections-Clause role; Court declines to adopt a specific test here and does not decide whether NC court exceeded bounds in this case

Key Cases Cited

  • Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (judicial review and courts’ duty to say what the law is)
  • Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916) (state referendum and Elections Clause: state-law procedures may apply to redistricting)
  • Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) (state legislative actions under Elections Clause must follow state lawmaking procedures, including governor participation where the state constitution provides)
  • Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015) (Elections Clause does not prohibit vesting redistricting power outside the representative legislature and recognizes state-constitutional constraints)
  • McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) (Electors Clause interpretation; distinguishes ratifying/electoral functions from lawmaking)
  • Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922) (state legislatures performing federal ratification functions act on behalf of federal power and are not constrained by state constitutions in that role)
  • Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) (circumstances in which a state high-court decision on a federal issue is treated as a final judgment for Supreme Court review)
  • Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (discusses limits on state-court interpretations of state law when federal questions are implicated; standards for federal review of state-court statutory interpretation in election cases)
  • Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (Article III mootness principle that controversy must exist at all stages)
  • Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (parties must retain a personal stake through all stages of review to satisfy Article III jurisdiction)
Read the full case