Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

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

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

rymandering claims present a political question that is non-
justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution.”  Id., at 
___–___, 886 S. E. 2d, at 400–401.  It concluded: 

“This  Court’s  opinion  in  Harper  I  is  overruled.   We 
affirm  the  three-judge  panel’s  [original]  11  January 
2022  Judgment  concluding,  inter  alia,  that  claims  of 
partisan gerrymandering present nonjusticiable, polit-
ical  questions  and  dismissing  all  of  plaintiffs’  claims
with  prejudice.  This  Court’s  opinion  in  Harper  II  is 
withdrawn and superseded by this opinion.  The three-
judge  panel’s  23  February  2022  order  addressing  the
Remedial Plans is vacated.  Plaintiffs’ claims are dis-
missed with prejudice.”  Id., at ___, 886 S. E. 2d, at 449. 

In short, this case is over, and petitioners won.  The trial 
court’s  original  final  judgment  in  favor  of  petitioners,  af-
firmed  by  the  State  Supreme  Court  in  Harper  III,  repre-
sents “the final determination of the rights of the parties” 
in this case.  N. C. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(a) (2023).  Harper I
has  been  overruled,  and  plaintiffs-respondents’  claims  for
relief  have  been  dismissed  on  adequate  and  independent 
state-law  grounds.  As  a  result,  petitioners’  alternative 
Elections Clause defense to those claims no longer requires 
decision; the merits of that defense simply have no bearing 
on the judgment between the parties in this action.  That is 
the definition of mootness for an issue. 

It  follows  that  no  live  controversy  remains  before  this 
Court.  For any case or controversy to exist here, petitioners 
must  be  injured  by  the  judgment  below,  and  we  must  be 
able to redress that injury by acting upon that judgment.
See, e.g., Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 
588  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  4);  see also  Ex parte 
Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 86 (1807) (“The criterion [of] appel-
late . . . jurisdiction, is that it revises and corrects the deci-
sions of another tribunal”).  But petitioners are not injured 
by the judgment of Harper I at all, nor could we redress any