Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 45

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

7 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Elections Clause issue could make any difference to the fi-
nal  judgment  “adjudicating  all  the  claims  and  the  rights
and liabilities of all the parties” in this case.  N. C. Rule Civ. 
Proc. 54(b).  That should be the end of the discussion.  Be-
cause  the  question  presented  “cannot  affect  the  rights  of
[the]  litigants  in  the  case  before  [us],”  we  “are  without 
power to decide” it.  North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 
246 (1971) (per curiam).

Nonetheless, the majority finds that the judgment below 
still presents a live Article III case or controversy; it then
further concludes that the question presented has survived
and requires decision under Cox Broadcasting.2  See ante, 
at  6–11.    In  doing  so,  it  relies  extensively  on  petitioners’ 
“representations” that they “remain bound by the judgment
in Harper I.”  Ante, at 10; see also ante, at 5, 7, 11.  But, of 
course, parties’ mere representations that they are injured
never carry their “burden of demonstrating that they have 
standing” in this Court.  TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 15) (emphasis added).  Nor 
can such representations affect our “independent obligation 
to  assure  ourselves  that  jurisdiction  is  proper  before  pro-
ceeding  to  the  merits.”  Plains  Commerce  Bank  v.  Long 
Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U. S. 316, 324 (2008).

To ensure that it has jurisdiction here, the majority must
explain  how  petitioners’  federal  defense  could  still  affect 
“the rights of [the] litigants in th[is] case.”  Rice, 404 U. S., 
at 246.  It fails to do so.  Instead, it mostly points to irrele-

—————— 

2 In this case, these two inquiries are identical, making the majority’s 
bifurcated analysis somewhat artificial.  To say that an issue “will sur-
vive and require decision,” as Cox Broadcasting uses the phrase, simply 
means that it will not become moot, generally through some other issue
independently resolving the case (precisely what happened here).  See, 
e.g., Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U. S. 129, 141, n. 5 (2003); Florida v. 
Thomas, 532 U. S. 774, 779 (2001); Jefferson v. City of Tarrant, 522 U. S. 
75, 82–83 (1997); Cox Broadcasting, 420 U. S., at 478, 480–481, and n. 9.