Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

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

17 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

In sum, there is no issue before this Court that can affect 
the  judgment  in  this  action.    As  such,  the  question  pre-
sented  is  moot,  and  the  writ  of  certiorari  should  be  dis-
missed. 

II 

I  would  gladly  stop  there.  The  majority’s  views  on  the 
merits of petitioners’ moot Elections Clause defense are of
far  less  consequence  than  its  mistaken  belief  that  Article
III authorizes any merits conclusion in this case, and I do
not wish to belabor a question that we have no jurisdiction 
to decide.  Nonetheless, I do not find the majority’s merits
reasoning persuasive.

The  Elections  Clause  of  the  Constitution  provides  that 
“[t]he  Times,  Places  and  Manner  of  holding  Elections  for 
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at 
any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as 
to  the  Places  of  chusing  Senators.”    Art.  I,  §4,  cl. 1.    The 
question presented was whether the people of a State can 
place  state-constitutional  limits  on  the  times,  places,  and 
manners of holding congressional elections that “the Legis-
lature” of the State has the power to prescribe.  Petitioners 
said no.  Their position rests on three premises, from which 
the conclusion follows. 

The first premise is that “the people of a single State” lack
any  ability  to  limit  powers  “given  by  the  people  of  the 
United  States”  as  a  whole.  McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4 
Wheat. 316, 429 (1819).  This idea should be uncontrover-
sial, as it is “the unavoidable consequence of th[e] suprem-
acy” of the Federal Constitution and laws.  Id., at 436.  As 
the Court once put it (in a case about the Article V ratifying
power of state legislatures), “a federal function derived from
the  Federal  Constitution  . . .  transcends  any  limitations 
—————— 
P. 1110, 1112 (1924).  Such advisory opinions may be authorized by some 
state constitutions, but Article III gives this Court no such power.