Previous 6 / 65 Next

Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 21–1271 _________________ TIMOTHY K. MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. REBECCA HARPER, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA [June 27, 2023] CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. Several groups of plaintiffs challenged North Carolina’s congressional districting map as an impermissible partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs brought claims under North Carolina’s Constitution, which provides that “[a]ll elections shall be free.” Art. I, §10. Relying on that provision, as well as the State Constitution’s equal protection, free speech, and free assembly clauses, the North Carolina Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiffs and struck down the legislature’s map. The Court concluded that North Carolina’s Legislature deliberately drew the State’s congressional map to favor Republican candidates. In drawing the State’s congressional map, North Carolina’s Legislature exercised authority under the Elections Clause of the Federal Constitution, which expressly requires “the Legislature” of each State to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of ” federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. We decide today whether that Clause vests state leg-

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Moore v. Harper

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, § 4, cl. 1)—which provides that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"—vests exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules for federal elections, insulating them from review by state courts applying state constitutional constraints.

Alleged Acts: In 2021, following the 2020 U.S. Census, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a new congressional redistricting map. A group of North Carolina voters and organizations (led by Rebecca Harper) sued in state court, alleging that the map constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the North Carolina Constitution's Free Elections Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Free Speech Clause. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed, holding that the map violated the state constitution, and ordered the legislature to draw a new map. When the legislature failed to produce a compliant map, the state court imposed its own remedial map drawn by a panel of trial court judges. The North Carolina legislature (led by Speaker of the House Timothy K. Moore) then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, invoking the "independent state legislature" theory—the argument that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have exclusive and independent authority to set the rules for federal elections, free from review or override by state courts applying state constitutional provisions.

Procedural history: The North Carolina trial court initially ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable. The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that the maps violated the state constitution and ordering remedial maps.

Summary: Moore v. Harper was a landmark constitutional case in which the Supreme Court decisively rejected the "independent state legislature" theory. The theory would have given state legislatures nearly unchecked power over federal election rules, free from state court oversight or state constitutional limits. The Court's 6–3 ruling confirmed that state legislatures, when regulating federal elections under the Elections Clause, remain bound by state constitutions and subject to state judicial review—preserving the system of checks and balances within state governments over the conduct of federal elections.

Conclusion: In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory and affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's ruling. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. State legislatures remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review under state constitutional provisions when prescribing rules for federal elections. The Court relied on historical practice and precedent, particularly Smiley v. Holm, to conclude that the term "Legislature" in the Elections Clause refers to the state's lawmaking apparatus as a whole—including the constraints of the state constitution and the role of state courts—rather than the legislature acting independently of other state institutions.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Maps and Districting
Judicial Independence

Applicable Law(s): Elections Clause (Art. I, Section 4) of the United States Constitution, and North Carolina Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 27, 2023

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf

Primary Documents

Moore v. Harper.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Moore v. Harper

Primary Documents

Notifications