Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

6 

MOORE v. HARPER 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

injury to petitioners by doing anything to it.  Whether we 
accept  or  reject  petitioners’  Elections  Clause  defense, 
plaintiffs-respondents’ claims remain dismissed.  As far as 
this  case  is  concerned,  there  simply  is  nothing  this  Court 
could decide that could make any difference to who wins or 
what happens next in any lower court.  That is the defini-
tion of mootness for an appellate proceeding. 

The United States understands this.  See Supplemental
Letter Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 3 (May 11, 
2023) (“[T]he question this Court granted certiorari to de-
cide is now moot because the Court’s resolution of that ques-
tion could not affect the disposition of this case”).  So do the 
elections  officials  whose  conduct  Harper  I  once  enjoined. 
Supplemental Brief for State Respondents 1 (May 11, 2023) 
(“[T]his case is moot”).  So, too, do the plaintiffs-respondents
who started this case in the first place.  See Letter Brief for 
North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc., et al. 
2  (May  11,  2023)  (“The  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court’s 
February  2022  judgment  reversing  the  same  January  11,
2022 trial-court judgment that the North Carolina Supreme 
Court just affirmed is now a nullity”); Supplemental Letter
Brief for Rebecca Harper et al. 1 (May 11, 2023) (“Petition-
ers have won a full victory in state court”).  As one group of
plaintiffs-respondents put it, “there is no non-frivolous ba-
sis for jurisdiction here.”  Ibid. 

B 

The majority does not contest that the Elections Clause 
issue  in  this  case  was  only  a  defense  to  plaintiffs-
respondents’ claims for relief.  Nor does it deny that Harper 
III  overruled  Harper  I  and  affirmed  the  very  same  trial-
court judgment that Harper I had reversed.  And it concedes 
that,  as  a  result,  plaintiffs-respondents’  claims  have  been
dismissed  in  full  on  state-law  nonjusticiability  grounds.
Thus, the majority does not contend that its opinion on the