Moore v. Harper
In brief
State legislatures must follow their state constitutions when writing rules for federal elections, and state courts can enforce those limits.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 27, 2023 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
- What it’s about
- North Carolina legislators argued the Elections Clause gives state legislatures exclusive authority over rules for congressional elections.
- Who it affects
- State courts may review congressional-election laws under their state constitutions. For example, voters and lawmakers can challenge an election rule in state court, while federal courts retain authority to review federal issues.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court rejected that theory and held state courts may review such laws under state constitutions, subject to ordinary federal judicial review.
The decision preserves the usual role of state constitutions and state courts in limiting state legislatures' election rules.
Question presented
Under the U.S. Constitution, does the state legislative body, independent of any constraints by state courts or other laws, have sole authority to regulate federal elections?
What the Court decided
Holding
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.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Kavanaughwrote separately
From the opinions
“The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.”
“The issue on which it opines-a federal defense to claims already dismissed on other grounds-can no longer affect the judgment in this litigation in any way.”
What's next
State legislatures and state courts must apply election rules subject to state constitutional limits. Federal courts may review state-court interpretations when federal law is implicated.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Status changed from decided to null
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Reply
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Moore v. Harper?
- The Court rejected the theory that state legislatures have exclusive authority over federal-election rules. It affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court, 6-3.
- What does Moore v. Harper mean for state lawmakers and voters?
- Lawmakers' congressional-election rules remain subject to state constitutions. Voters and other affected parties may challenge those rules in state court.
- What happens next after Moore v. Harper?
- State courts may continue reviewing election laws under state constitutions. Federal courts may review state-court interpretations involving federal law.
- Is the independent state legislature theory still the law after Moore v. Harper?
- No. The Court said the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive and independent authority over federal-election rules.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.