The Supreme Court upheld the right of courts to review the constitutionality of federal election maps produced by state legislatures on Tuesday, rejecting the so-called “independent state legislature” theory advanced by the North Carolina GOP.
The case, Moore v. Harper, arose as the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a federal congressional map approved by the state legislature as a partisan gerrymander. State Republican lawmakers appealed the ruling up to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution prevents state courts from restricting legislatures’ power to regulate federal elections.
The lawmakers pointed to Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, known as the Elections Clause, as the rationale for the independent state legislature theory. The clause states that state legislatures shall set the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections for senators and representatives in the Senate and House, respectively.
The Republicans argued that the text of the clause means that the North Carolina Supreme Court and the state constitution could not block the approved map, and the authority for regulating federal elections was exclusively vested in the state legislature.
But the court denied the independent state legislature theory in a 6-3 ruling, finding that state courts can review state legislatures’ actions in lawsuits over partisan gerrymandering.
“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
The majority — in which Roberts was joined by liberal-leaning justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and by conservative-leaning justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — still found that courts must review legislatures’ actions within the “ordinary bounds” of judicial review and are still limited when their decisions conflict with federal law.
The court’s ruling will not have much of a direct effect on North Carolina’s map, as Republicans retook control of the state Supreme Court following the midterm elections last November and the court reversed its own ruling throwing out the map in April.
But the case potentially had implications for the future of more than 170 state constitutional provisions, more than 650 state laws granting authority to state and local officials to make election policies and thousands of regulations, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school.
The state court’s reversal raised the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could have decided to not rule on the merits of the case and instead dismiss it as moot.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and in part by Justice Samuel Alito, in arguing that the case should have been dismissed as moot.
Thomas and Gorsuch argued against the majority opinion on the merits of the case, with Thomas writing that “this federalization of state constitutions will serve mainly to swell federal-court dockets with state constitutional questions to be quickly resolved with generic statements of deference to the state courts.”
If the court had dismissed the case as moot, the argument could potentially have come up again during the lead up to the 2024 presidential election.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.