Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 49

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

idea defies both common sense and civil procedure.  A court 
simply  does  not  go  on  enforcing  an  interlocutory  injunc-
tion—and imposing contempt sanctions for disobedience—
after reaching a final judgment dismissing every relevant 
claim for relief.  Rather, the interlocutory injunction (like
all  interlocutory  orders)  merges  into  the  final  judgment
fully “adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabil-
ities  of  all  the  parties”  to  the  case.    N. C.  Rule  Civ.  Proc. 
54(b) (emphasis added).  “With the entry of [Harper III ’s]
final judgment, the life of [Harper I ’s] injunction came to an
end,  and  it  no  longer  ha[s]  a  binding  effect  on  any  one.” 
Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc. v. Shavers, 562 F. 2d 
141, 144 (CA2 1977).

In any event, the majority’s analysis plainly does not turn 
on the belief that any defendant remains liable to potential 
contempt  sanctions  and  jail  time.   Instead,  its  animating
idea (uncritically borrowed from petitioners) is that Harper 
I ’s “judgment” operated against the 2021 Act as a statute. 
The majority describes Harper I ’s “judgment” interchange-
ably as “enjoining the use of the 2021 ma[p]” and “striking 
down the 2021 pla[n].”  Ante, at 7, 9.  It then reasons that 
reversing that “judgment” would “negate the force of its or-
der  striking  down  the  2021  pla[n],”  thus  “alter[ing]  the 
presently  operative  statutes  of  North  Carolina”  such  that
the 2021 Act would “again take effect.”  Ante, at 7–8 (inter-
nal  quotation  marks  omitted).  The  majority  regards  this
aspect of Harper I ’s “judgment” as entirely independent of 
Harper III ’s final resolution of the claims in this case.  See 
ante, at 5–8, 10–11.  And it finds its theory “confirm[ed]” by 
a  proviso  in  a  remedial  redistricting  Act,  passed  immedi-
ately after Harper I, stating that the 2021 Act would “again 
become effective” if this Court reversed Harper I.  Ante, at 
8 (internal quotation marks omitted).  In short, the “case or
controversy” that the majority thinks is still before us has 
nothing to do with the parties’ rights and liabilities on the 
claims asserted in this action; rather, it is simply whether