Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

8 

MOORE v. HARPER 

Opinion of the Court 

Were we to reverse the judgment in Harper I—a step not
taken  by  the  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court—the  2021 
plans  enacted  by  the  legislative  defendants  would  again
take effect.  The parties accordingly continue to have a “per-
sonal  stake  in  the  ultimate  disposition  of  the  lawsuit.” 
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).

A North Carolina statute with specific application to this 
proceeding confirms that the controversy before us remains 
live.  Under  state  law,  if  “the  United  States  Supreme 
Court . . . reverses” the decision in Harper I, the 2021 maps 
will again become “effective.”  2022 N. C. Sess. Laws p. 10, 
§2.  We have previously found such trigger provisions—in
North Carolina, no less—sufficient to avoid mootness under 
Article III.  See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U. S. 541, 546, n. 1 
(1999)  (“Because  the  State’s  1998  law  provides  that  the
State will revert to the 1997 districting plan upon a favora-
ble decision of this Court . . . this case is not moot.”). 

We also have jurisdiction to review the judgment in Har-
per I under 28 U. S. C. §1257(a).  That statute provides for 
this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over “[f]inal judgments
or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which 
a decision could be had.”  Ibid.  We have, however, “recur-
ringly encountered situations in which the highest court of 
a State has finally determined the federal issue present in 
a particular case, but in which there are further proceed-
ings in the lower state courts to come.”  Cox Broadcasting 
Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 477 (1975). 

Cox Broadcasting delineated “at least four categories of 
such cases in which the Court has treated the decision on 
the federal issue as a final judgment for the purposes of 28 
U. S. C. §1257,” despite “additional proceedings anticipated
in  the  lower  state  courts.”  Ibid.  As  relevant,  the  second 
category  includes  those  “cases . . . in  which  the  federal  is-
sue, finally decided by the highest court in the State, will 
survive  and  require  decision  regardless  of  the  outcome  of