Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

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

13 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

premise of judicial review itself.  “[A]n unconstitutional pro-
vision is never really part of the body of governing law,” for
“the Constitution automatically displaces [it] from the mo-
ment of [its] enactment.”  Collins v. Yellen, 594 U. S. ___, 
___ (2021) (slip op., at 35) (emphasis added).  Thus, when a 
court  holds  a  statute  unconstitutional,  it  is  emphatically 
not  depriving  it  of  any  legal  force  that  it  previously  pos-
sessed as an Act.  The court is only deciding “a particular 
case” “conformably to the constitution, disregarding” a stat-
ute  that  cannot  “govern  the  case”  because  it  is  already 
“void.”  Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 178; accord, Bayard v. Sin-
gleton, 1 N. C. 5, 7 (1787) (holding that the unconstitutional 
“act on which [a party’s] motion was grounded . . . must of 
course,  in  that  instance,  stand  as  abrogated  and  without 
any effect”).  “That is the classic explanation for the basis of
judicial review” set forth in Marbury and Bayard, and it re-
mains “from that day to this the sole continuing rationale
for  the  exercise  of  this judicial  power.”    Mackey  v.  United 
States, 401 U. S. 667, 678 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in
judgment in part and dissenting in part).

The majority’s theory thus fails twice over, both as a de-
scription of Harper I ’s “judgment” and as an explanation of 
how  any  justiciable  controversy  could  exist  in  this  Court. 
The only power that the North Carolina courts exercised at
any stage of this case was that of “determin[ing] the respec-
tive rights and liabilities or duties of litigants in [the] con-
troversy”  before  them.  Nicholson,  275  N. C.,  at  447,  168 
S. E.  2d,  at  406.    Harper  I ’s  judgment  line  did  not  read:
“Stricken down,” referring to the 2021 Act, but instead: “Re-
versed  and  remanded,”  referring  to  the  lower  court  judg-
ment and the case between these parties.  380 N. C., at 404, 
868 S. E. 2d, at 560 (some capitalization deleted).  The ju-
dicial power operates upon parties and cases, not statutes,