Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 41

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

conducting  elections  in  accord  with  the  Act.1  They  based
their  claim  for  relief  on  the  North  Carolina  Constitution, 
which they argued prohibits excessive partisan gerryman-
ders. 

Petitioners,  state  legislators  representing  North  Caro-
lina’s interest in the enforcement of the Act, see N. C. Gen. 
Stat. Ann. §1–72.2 (2021); Berger v. North Carolina State 
Conference of the NAACP, 597 U. S. ___, ___, ___–___ (2022) 
(slip  op.,  at  2,  8–9),  raised  defenses  under  both  state  and 
federal  law.  As  relevant  here,  they  argued:  (1)  that
partisan-gerrymandering  claims  are  not  justiciable  under 
the  North  Carolina  Constitution;  and  (2)  that  the  State
Constitution  cannot  restrict  the  General  Assembly’s  con-
gressional  districting  legislation  under  the  federal  Elec-
tions Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, cl. 1.

Initially,  a  three-judge  trial  court  endorsed  petitioners’ 
state-law defense and entered a final judgment dismissing 
plaintiffs-respondents’  claims  with  prejudice.  But,  on  ap-
peal,  the  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court  reversed  that 
judgment.  See Harper v. Hall, 380 N. C. 317, 868 S. E. 2d 
499 (2022) (Harper I).  In Harper I, the court held that the 
2021  Act  violated  the  State  Constitution,  enjoined  its  im-
plementation, and remanded the case to the trial court for
remedial proceedings.  In doing so, Harper I rejected both
petitioners’  state-law  justiciability  defense  and  their  fed-
eral Elections Clause defense. 

Petitioners  then  sought  this  Court’s  review  of  Harper  I 
insofar as it rejected their federal defense.  From the start, 
they faced a significant jurisdictional question.  Our appel-

—————— 

1 Technically, there were two state-court actions below.  These actions 
have been consolidated at every stage and can be regarded as one action
for all relevant purposes.  For simplicity, I will use the singular.  Also for 
simplicity, I focus here on plaintiffs-respondents’ challenge to the 2021 
congressional districting map, putting aside their parallel challenges to 
the Assembly’s 2021 State House and State Senate maps.