Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

case.  The  plaintiffs  here  sought  to  enjoin  the  use  of  the 
2021 plans enacted by the legislative defendants.  Harper I
granted  that  relief,  and  in  doing  so  rejected  the  Elections 
Clause  defense  at  issue  before  us.    380  N. C.,  at  403,  868 
S. E.  2d,  at  559.    Prior  to  both  the  appeal  and  rehearing 
proceedings  in  Harper  II,  the  North  Carolina  Supreme 
Court  had  already  entered  the  judgment  and  issued  the
mandate in Harper I.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 306–309.
And  the  time  during  which  the  defendants  could  seek  re-
hearing  as  to  that  judgment  had  long  since  passed.    See 
N. C. Rule App. Proc. 31(a) (2023) (requiring that a rehear-
ing petition be brought within 15 days of the issuance of the
mandate).  Recognizing this reality, the legislative defend-
ants did not ask the North Carolina Supreme Court to dis-
turb the judgment in Harper I as part of the rehearing pro-
ceedings.  They  instead  acknowledged  that  they  would 
remain  bound  by  Harper  I ’s  decision  enjoining  the  use  of 
the  2021  plans.  See  Pet.  for  Rehearing  24  (“[O]verruling 
Harper I will not negate the force of its order striking down 
the 2021 plans.”).

The North Carolina Supreme Court “overruled” Harper I, 
thereby granting the specific relief requested by the legis-
lative  defendants.    As  a  result,  partisan  gerrymandering
claims are no longer justiciable under the State’s Constitu-
tion.  Harper, ___ N. C., at ___, 886 S. E. 2d, at 449.  But 
although the defendants may now draw new congressional
maps, they agree that the North Carolina Supreme Court
overruled only the “reasoning of Harper I ” and did not “dis-
turb . . . its judgment nor . . . alter the presently operative
statutes of North Carolina.”  Second Supp. Letter Brief for 
Petitioners 3.  In other words, although partisan gerryman-
dering claims are no longer viable under the North Carolina
Constitution, the North Carolina Supreme Court has done
nothing to alter the effect of the judgment in Harper I en-
joining the use of the 2021 maps.  As a result, the legislative
defendants’ path to complete relief runs through this Court.