Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

6 

MOORE v. HARPER 

Opinion of the Court 

stitution.  ___ N. C., at ___, 886 S. E. 2d, at 446–448.  In-
stead,  the Court  provided  the  General  Assembly  with  the 
“opportunity to enact a new set of legislative and congres-
sional redistricting plans, guided by federal law, the objec-
tive constraints in Article II, Sections 3 and 5 [of the North 
Carolina Constitution], and this opinion.”  Id., at ___, 886 
S. E. 2d, at 448.  The Court did not revisit Harper I ’s con-
clusion  that  the  Federal  Elections  Clause  does  not  shield 
state  legislatures  from  review  by  state  courts  for  compli-
ance with state constitutional provisions.  ___ N. C., at ___, 
886 S. E. 2d, at 422 (“The General Assembly exercises [re-
districting]  authority subject to the express limitations in
our constitution and in federal law.”).  We invited the par-
ties  to  submit  additional  supplemental  briefs  addressing 
the effect of the Court’s decision on our jurisdiction. 

II 

Before  turning  to  the  merits,  we  must  “determine  as  a 
threshold  matter  that  we  have  jurisdiction.”  Goodyear 
Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U. S. 174, 178 (1988).  The Con-
stitution  provides  for  our  jurisdiction  over  “Cases”  and 
“Controversies.”  Art. III, §2.  That constitutional require-
ment ensures that the parties before us retain a “personal 
stake” in the litigation.  Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 
(1962).  As “[a] corollary to this case-or-controversy require-
ment,” 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 (2013) (in-
ternal  quotation  marks  omitted).  Mootness  doctrine  “ad-
dresses whether an intervening circumstance has deprived
the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the law-
suit.”  West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip
op., at 15) (alterations and internal quotation marks omit-
ted).

The  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court’s  decision  to  with-
draw  Harper  II  and  overrule  Harper  I  does  not  moot  this