Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 15

10 

MOORE v. HARPER 

Opinion of the Court 

serves that the North Carolina Supreme Court has now dis-
missed  the  plaintiffs’  claims  with  prejudice.    He  posits,
therefore,  that  the  legislative  defendants  “are  not  injured 
by the judgment of Harper I.”  Post, at 5 (dissenting opin-
ion).  But the record before us belies that notion.  Harper I 
enjoined the use of the 2021 maps in subsequent elections 
in North Carolina.  Well after the time for seeking rehear-
ing as to that judgment passed, the legislative defendants 
instead sought rehearing with respect to Harper II, a dis-
tinct decision concerning remedies.  The defendants stead-
fastly  maintained  in  rehearing  proceedings  before  the 
North  Carolina  Supreme  Court  that  “overruling  Harper  I
[would] not negate the force of its order striking down the
2021 plans.”  Pet. for Rehearing 24; see also Legislative De-
fendants’  Supp.  Brief  on  Rehearing  in  Harper  v.  Hall, 
No. 413PA21–2, p. 56 (N. C., Feb. 17, 2023) (“[T]he Court’s
dictate that the 2021 plans may not be used ‘in any future
elections’ would not be vacated.”).  With those concessions 
on the record, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued its 
decision  “overruling”  Harper  I,  and—by  contrast—“with-
draw[ing]” its decision in Harper II.  Harper, ___ N. C., at 
___, 886 S. E. 2d, at 449.  And mirroring their representa-
tions before the North Carolina Supreme Court, the legis-
lative defendants now maintain in this Court that they con-
tinue to remain bound by the judgment in Harper I. 

In an effort to cast doubt on these consistent representa-
tions by the injured party before us, JUSTICE THOMAS con-
tends that the legislative defendants have already received
complete  relief  because  nothing  now  prevents  the  imple-
mentation of the 2021 maps.  Post, at 15 (dissenting opin-
ion).  For the reasons stated above, that would come as a 
surprise  to  both  the  legislative  defendants  and  the  North
Carolina Supreme Court.  The dissent also emphasizes that 
several of the plaintiffs contest our jurisdiction.  Post, at 6. 
But that has been their position from the very beginning,