Moore v. Harper
Headline: State constitutions can limit state legislatures’ rules for federal elections; Court rejected claim that the Elections Clause bars state-court review and allowed state courts to review and strike maps.
Holding: The Court held that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive, independent power to set federal election rules free from state constitutional limits, and state courts may review such legislative acts.
- Allows state courts to block or remake congressional maps under state constitutions.
- Limits state legislatures’ ability to enact federal-election rules that violate state constitutions.
- Permits federal review where state courts overstep and improperly displace legislative power.
Summary
Background
Several groups of voters and organizations sued North Carolina officials after the Legislature drew new congressional districts following the 2020 census. Plaintiffs alleged the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander under the North Carolina Constitution. A trial court found the map a partisan outlier but ruled the claims nonjusticiable; the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I reversed, struck the 2021 map under state law, rejected the Legislature’s Elections Clause defense, and ordered remedial proceedings. The state court later reheard the remedial order, withdrew part of its opinion, and then overruled Harper I’s justiciability ruling and dismissed the claims with prejudice; it did not reinstate the 2021 plan. The legislative defendants then sought review in this Court.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Elections Clause gives state legislatures exclusive authority to make federal election rules free from state constitutional limits and state-court review. The Court held it does not. Relying on historical practice and precedent, the Court explained that legislatures remain subject to state constitutional constraints and to state judicial review when making election laws. But state courts may not exceed ordinary review and usurp the legislature’s role; federal courts can ensure state courts do not transgress federal law. The Court affirmed Harper I’s federal-issue judgment but did not decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded permissible limits.
Real world impact
State courts can consider state constitutional limits when reviewing congressional maps, giving voters and interest groups a forum in state court. State legislatures remain constrained by state constitutions when making federal election rules, while federal courts can review state courts’ interpretations if they unfairly supplant legislative power. This decision leaves redistricting fights playing out in both state and federal forums, with limits on both branches.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Kavanaugh concurred, agreeing on state-court review and urging a deferential standard. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the case was moot and the Court lacked jurisdiction.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?