2 MOORE v. HARPER Syllabus defendants’ request to rehear that remedial decision in Harper II. The court ultimately withdrew the opinion in Harper II concerning the remedial maps and overruled Harper I, repudiating its holding that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims but did not reinstate the 2021 congressional plans struck down in Harper I under the State Constitution. This Court has entertained two rounds of supplemental briefing on jurisdictional questions in light of the state court’s rehearing proceedings. Held: 1. This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal Elections Clause issue. A corollary to this Court’s jurisdiction over “Cases” and “Controversies” is that there must exist a dispute “at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66, 71 (internal quotation marks omitted). The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to withdraw Harper II and overrule Harper I does not moot this case. Prior to the appeal and rehearing proceedings in Harper II, the court had already entered the judgment and issued the mandate in Harper I, and the legislative defendants acknowledged that they would remain bound by Harper I’s decision enjoining the use of the 2021 plans. When the North Carolina Supreme Court “overruled” Harper I as part of the rehearing proceedings, it repudiated Harper I’s conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution. But the court did not purport to alter or amend the judgment in Harper I enjoining the use of the 2021 maps. Were this Court to reverse Harper I, the 2021 plans would again take effect. Because the legislative defendants’ path to complete relief runs through this Court, the parties continue to have a “personal stake in the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit” sufficient to maintain this Court’s jurisdiction. Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court also has jurisdiction to review the judgment in Harper I under 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), which provides that jurisdiction in this Court extends to “[f]inal judgments . . . rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, identified categories of cases in which a decision of a State’s highest court was considered a final judgment for §1257(a) purposes despite the anticipation of additional lower court proceedings, including “cases . . . in which the federal issue, finally decided by the highest court in the State, will survive and require decision regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings.” Id., at 480. Harper I is such a case. Because subsequent proceedings have