Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

4 

MOORE v. HARPER 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

late jurisdiction over state courts is limited to “[f]inal judg-
ments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in 
which a decision could be had.”  28 U. S. C. §1257(a).  But 
Harper I was “a classic example of non-finality”; it was an
order that resolved the issue of liability and remanded for 
remedial proceedings.  Taylor v. Board of Ed. of City School 
Dist.  of  New  Rochelle,  288  F.  2d  600,  602  (CA2  1961)
(Friendly,  J.).  Thus,  under  the  normal  rules,  Harper  I 
would not be “reviewable by this Court.”  Jefferson v. City 
of Tarrant, 522 U. S. 75, 81 (1997). 

Nonetheless, this Court’s precedents have recognized “a 
limited set of situations” in which “finality as to [a] federal 
issue”  permits  our  review,  even  in  the  absence  of  a  final
judgment as to the case.  O’Dell v. Espinoza, 456 U. S. 430 
(1982) (per curiam) (emphasis added).  In granting certio-
rari, we relied on one of those doctrinal exceptions, prem-
ised on the assumption that “the federal issue” in this case 
would “survive and require decision regardless of the out-
come of future state-court proceedings.”  Cox Broadcasting 
Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 480 (1975).

As it turned out, that assumption was wrong.  After Har-
per I, on remand, the trial court adopted a remedial district-
ing plan for the 2022 elections.  Petitioners then appealed
that order, taking the case to the North Carolina Supreme
Court for a second time.  Initially, the North Carolina Su-
preme Court released an opinion applying Harper I and af-
firming the trial court’s decree.  Harper v. Hall, 383 N. C. 
89,  881  S. E.  2d  156  (2022)  (Harper  II ).  But  then,  after 
granting  petitioners’  request  for  rehearing,  the  court  “re-
visit[ed]  the  crucial  issue  in  this  case:  whether  claims  of 
partisan  gerrymandering  are  justiciable  under  the  state 
constitution.”  Harper v. Hall, ___ N. C. ___, ___, 886 S. E. 
2d  393,  399  (2023)  (Harper  III ).  After  reexamining  “the 
fundamental  premises  underlying  the  decisions  in  both 
Harper II and Harper I,” the court “h[e]ld that partisan ger-