Moore v. Harper

600 U.S. 1 (2023)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Elections Clause provides: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” The 2020 decennial census resulted in North Carolina getting an extra seat in the House. D set out to redraw the State’s congressional districts. D also drafted new maps for the State’s legislative districts, including the State House and the State Senate. It enacted three new maps, with each being passed along party lines. Harper (Ps) sued in state court asserting that each map constituted an impermissible partisan gerrymander in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court found that D drew state legislative and federal congressional maps to favor Republican candidates. The court denied relief, reasoning that the partisan gerrymandering claims “amounted to political questions that are nonjusticiable under the North Carolina Constitution.” The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that Ds violated state law “beyond a reasonable doubt” by enacting maps that constituted partisan gerrymanders. It rejected the trial court’s conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims present a nonjusticiable political question. The State Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Elections Clause in the Federal Constitution vests exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to draw congressional maps. The Court struck down the maps and remanded the case to the trial “court to oversee the redrawing of the maps by the General Assembly or, if necessary, by the court.” Two days later, the General Assembly adopted a remedial congressional redistricting plan. The trial court rejected that plan and adopted in its place interim maps developed by several Special Masters for use in the 2022 North Carolina congressional elections. Ds filed an emergency application in this Court, citing the Elections Clause and requesting a stay of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The North Carolina Supreme Court heard an appeal concerning the trial court’s remedial order. That Court issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case. As relevant, it agreed with the trial court’s determination that D’s remedial congressional plan “fell short” of the requirements set forth in Harper I. Harper II, 383 N. C., at 125. Ds sought rehearing, requesting that the North Carolina Supreme Court “withdraw” its remedial opinion in Harper II. They also asked the State Court to “overrule” its decision in Harper I. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted rehearing in Harper II, and the Supreme Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing concerning our jurisdiction over this case in light of that decision. The North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision granting the requests made by Ds. The Court withdrew its opinion in Harper II, concerning the remedial maps, and “overruled” its decision in Harper I. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Rucho and on a renewed look at the constitutional provisions at issue, the Court repudiated Harper I’s conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed Ps’ claims with prejudice. It did not reinstate the 2021 congressional plans that Harper I had struck down. The Supreme Court then took up the matter.