Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

MOORE v. HARPER 

Syllabus 

defendants’ request to rehear that remedial decision in Harper II.  The 
court ultimately withdrew the opinion in Harper II concerning the re-
medial maps and overruled Harper I, repudiating its holding that par-
tisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina
Constitution.  The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims but did not rein-
state the 2021 congressional plans struck down in Harper I under the 
State Constitution.  This Court has entertained two rounds of supple-
mental briefing on jurisdictional questions in light of the state court’s 
rehearing proceedings. 

Held: 

1. This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North 
Carolina  Supreme  Court  in  Harper  I  that  adjudicated  the  Federal 
Elections  Clause  issue.   A  corollary  to  this  Court’s  jurisdiction  over 
“Cases” and “Controversies” is that there must exist a dispute “at all
stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”  Genesis 
HealthCare  Corp.  v.  Symczyk,  569  U. S.  66,  71  (internal  quotation 
marks  omitted).    The  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court’s  decision  to 
withdraw  Harper  II  and  overrule  Harper  I  does  not  moot  this  case. 
Prior to the appeal and rehearing proceedings in Harper II, the court 
had already entered the judgment and issued the mandate in Harper 
I, and the legislative defendants acknowledged that they would remain 
bound by Harper I’s decision enjoining the use of the 2021 plans.  When 
the North Carolina Supreme Court “overruled” Harper I as part of the 
rehearing proceedings, it repudiated Harper I’s conclusion that parti-
san gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina 
Constitution.  But the court did not purport to alter or amend the judg-
ment in Harper I enjoining the use of the 2021 maps.  Were this Court 
to reverse Harper I, the 2021 plans would again take effect.  Because 
the  legislative  defendants’  path  to  complete  relief  runs  through  this 
Court, the parties continue to have a “personal stake in the ultimate 
disposition of the lawsuit” sufficient to maintain this Court’s jurisdic-
tion.  Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (internal quotation marks 
omitted).

This Court also has jurisdiction to review the judgment in Harper I
under  28  U. S. C.  §1257(a),  which  provides  that  jurisdiction  in  this
Court extends to “[f]inal judgments . . . rendered by the highest court 
of a State in which a decision could be had.”  Cox Broadcasting Corp. 
v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, identified categories of cases in which a deci-
sion  of  a  State’s  highest  court  was  considered  a  final  judgment  for 
§1257(a)  purposes  despite  the  anticipation  of  additional  lower  court 
proceedings, including “cases . . . in which the federal issue, finally de-
cided by the highest court in the State, will survive and require deci-
sion regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings.”  Id., 
at 480.  Harper I is such a case.  Because subsequent proceedings have