Moore v. Harper
600 U.S. 1 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not grant state legislatures exclusive and independent authority to regulate federal elections, meaning their actions are subject to ordinary judicial review under their respective state constitutions. However, state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review to arrogate to themselves the power the Clause vests in state legislatures.
Facts:
- Following the 2020 decennial census, North Carolina was apportioned an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
- In November 2021, North Carolina's General Assembly, the state legislature, enacted a new congressional redistricting map.
- The map was passed along party lines and was expected to give Republican candidates a significant electoral advantage.
- Several groups of voters and organizations, led by Rebecca Harper, challenged the map, alleging it was an extreme partisan gerrymander.
- The challengers argued the map violated provisions of the North Carolina Constitution guaranteeing free elections, equal protection, free speech, and free assembly.
Procedural Posture:
- Several groups of plaintiffs sued legislative leaders in North Carolina state court (Wake County Superior Court), seeking to enjoin the 2021 congressional map.
- A three-judge panel of the state trial court found the map was an intentional partisan gerrymander but dismissed the claims, holding they presented a nonjusticiable political question under the state constitution.
- The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
- In a decision known as Harper I, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable and the 2021 map violated the state constitution.
- The state supreme court in Harper I also rejected the legislative defendants' federal defense based on the Elections Clause.
- The state supreme court enjoined the use of the 2021 map and remanded the case for remedial proceedings.
- The legislative defendants (petitioners) sought review of the Harper I decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution vest state legislatures with exclusive and independent authority to regulate federal elections, thereby insulating their decisions from review by state courts for compliance with the state constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, C.J.
No. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. The Court reasoned that the principle of judicial review is a fundamental aspect of American government, established even before Marbury v. Madison, and the Elections Clause does not carve out an exception. Precedent, including Smiley v. Holm and Arizona State Legislature, confirms that when legislatures exercise their Elections Clause authority, they are still bound by their state's constitutional procedures and limitations for lawmaking. The Court rejected the proposed distinction between procedural and substantive constraints as unworkable and unsupported by history. However, the Court also held that state courts do not have free rein and may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review so as to usurp the legislature's constitutionally assigned role. Federal courts retain a duty to ensure state court interpretations do not evade federal law, though the Court declined to adopt a specific test for this federal oversight.
Concurring - Kavanaugh, J.
No. Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full but wrote separately to emphasize that while state courts may review legislative acts under the Elections Clause, federal courts in turn have the authority to review those state court decisions. He argued that federal review is necessary to respect the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures. He suggested that a deferential but not absolute standard, such as the one Chief Justice Rehnquist articulated in his Bush v. Gore concurrence (whether the state court 'impermissibly distorted' state law 'beyond what a fair reading required'), should apply to this federal oversight. He noted that the Court correctly refrained from adopting a specific test in this case because the petitioners had not properly raised the issue.
Dissenting - Thomas, J.
This case is moot and should be dismissed. The dissent argued that the North Carolina Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Harper III, which overruled Harper I and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on state-law nonjusticiability grounds, rendered the federal issue moot. Because the legislative defendants had already won a final judgment in state court, a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on their federal defense could not affect the outcome of the litigation, making the majority's opinion merely advisory. On the merits, the dissent contended the Elections Clause delegates a federal function to state legislatures that 'transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State' through their constitution. Therefore, state constitutions cannot impose substantive limits on the legislature's power to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections.
Analysis:
This landmark decision definitively rejects the 'independent state legislature theory' in its most robust form, affirming that state legislatures are not immune from their own state constitutions and judicial review when regulating federal elections. This maintains the traditional system of checks and balances at the state level. However, the opinion simultaneously creates a new potential avenue for federal litigation by establishing that federal courts can review state court election decisions for 'transgress[ing] the ordinary bounds of judicial review.' By leaving this standard undefined, the Court has opened the door for future federal court intervention in highly contentious state election law disputes, potentially leading to a new wave of 'Bush v. Gore' style challenges.
Unlock the full brief for Moore v. Harper