Moore v. Harper
The Court refused to block a North Carolina Supreme Court-drawn congressional map, letting it stand for the 2022 elections because the primary was too close to allow new district lines to be drawn.
The ruling left entirely open a major constitutional question — whether state courts can override state legislatures on federal election rules — with several justices signaling they want the Court to answer it soon in a full case.
How it got here: The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the legislature's congressional maps as partisan gerrymanders and imposed its own map; state legislative leaders applied directly to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay.
The Case in Depth
What happened
After North Carolina gained a congressional seat following the 2020 census, the state legislature drew two successive congressional district maps — both of which the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The state court then imposed its own map for the 2022 elections. State legislative leaders asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the court-drawn map while a legal challenge continued.
The question before the Court
Can a state court override a state legislature's congressional district maps by invoking the state constitution to strike down partisan gerrymandering?
The Court's answer
No stay. The Court declined to block the map the North Carolina Supreme Court had drawn, primarily because the 2022 primary was imminent and it was too late for courts to impose new district lines without seriously disrupting the election already underway.
The Court did not resolve the underlying constitutional question of whether state courts have authority to override state legislatures when drawing congressional districts. Several justices indicated that question must eventually be answered definitively, and that the Court should take up a suitable case — either from North Carolina or another state — for full briefing and argument.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
North Carolina's 2022 congressional elections proceeded under a map drawn by the state's own supreme court, not the legislature. More broadly, the unresolved constitutional question affects redistricting power across every state: if the Court eventually sides with the legislature, state courts nationwide could lose their ability to strike down partisan congressional gerrymanders on state constitutional grounds.
What changes now
North Carolina's 2022 congressional elections proceeded using the map the state supreme court drew. The core constitutional question — how much authority state courts have to override state legislatures on federal election rules under the Elections Clause — remained unresolved. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito both stated they expected the Court to grant full review in this case or a similar one, likely the following term, after full briefing and oral argument.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether state courts may override state legislatures when drawing congressional districts under the Elections Clause. It only denies emergency relief because the primary was too close at hand. The constitutional merits question was explicitly left open for a future case.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh agreed the stay should be denied, but solely because of timing: the Purcell principle forbids courts from reordering election rules so close to a primary, regardless of the merits. He expressly agreed with Justice Alito that the underlying Elections Clause question is important and that both sides have serious arguments, and he urged the Court to grant certiorari in this case or a similar one so the issue can be resolved after full briefing and oral argument.
Dissent — Justice Alito
Justice Alito would have granted the stay. He argued the applicants were likely to win on the merits because the Elections Clause specifically assigns power over federal election rules to the 'Legislature,' not the courts, and the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded any permissible limit on judicial review by substituting its own map. He also contended the timing disruption was minimal because the legislature had already prepared a backup map that would have activated automatically upon a stay.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court's denial rested on the Purcell principle — named after a 2006 per curiam ruling — which holds that federal courts should ordinarily not change state election rules in the period close to an upcoming election, to avoid voter confusion and disruption to election administration.
- Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, found that with North Carolina's 2022 primary imminent, it was simply too late for any court to order new district lines, just as he had concluded weeks earlier in a similar Alabama redistricting dispute. The timing alone was enough to defeat the emergency application.
- The separate question at the heart of the case — whether the Elections Clause of the Constitution (Article I, §4), which says congressional election rules must be 'prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,' limits what state courts can do when they interpret the state constitution to override a legislature's district maps — was not resolved by this order.
- Justice Alito, dissenting joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, argued the legislature was likely to win on the merits: the Elections Clause specifically names the 'Legislature,' not the state government broadly, meaning there must be some limit on state courts' power to substitute their own judgment for the legislature's on congressional election rules.
- Alito also contended the timing concern was overstated — because the legislature had designed a backup map that would have taken effect automatically upon a stay — and that leaving an allegedly unconstitutional court-drawn map in place was itself harmful to the public interest.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Purcell v. Gonzalez (549 U. S. 1)
Kavanaugh invokes Purcell to confirm courts should not change election rules close to an upcoming election.