Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1 GORSUCH, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ Nos. 19–1257 and 19–1258 _________________ MARK BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS 19–1257 v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL., PETITIONERS 19–1258 v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [July 1, 2021] JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide. Our cases have assumed—without deciding— that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 60, and n. 8 (1980) (plurality opinion). Lower courts have treated this as an open question. E.g., Washington v. Finlay, 664 F. 2d 913, 926 (CA4 1981). Because no party argues that the plaintiffs lack a cause of action here, and because the existence (or not) of a cause of action does not go to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, see Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U. S. 143, 150 (2015), this Court need not and does not address that issue today.