Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

8 

MOORE v. HARPER 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

vant facts about the procedural history of this case and mis-
applies civil-procedure rules as if Harper I and Harper III 
did not involve the same case.  But the error that actually
drives the majority’s conclusion is much deeper.  The ma-
jority  evidently  thinks  that  when  Harper  I  held  the  2021 
Act unconstitutional, it entered a “judgment” affecting the 
2021 Act as a statute, independent of its application to the 
legal rights of the litigants in this case.  And the majority 
thinks that to reverse Harper I ’s “judgment” would “negate 
the force of its order striking down” the Act, thus “alter[ing]
the presently operative statutes of North Carolina.”  Ante, 
at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted).  But, of course, the 
judicial  power  does  not  “operate  on  legal  rules  in  the  ab-
stract”; it operates on the rights and liabilities of contend-
ing  parties  with  adverse  legal  interests.    California  v. 
Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8) (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).  The majority’s reasoning cannot be
squared with the judicial power vested by the Constitution, 
the case-or-controversy requirement, or the nature of judi-
cial review. 

I start by clearing away some of the brush.  True, Harper 
III  did  not  expressly  “revisit”  the  Elections  Clause  issue, 
ante, at 6; true as well, petitioners did not obtain rehearing 
of Harper I, see ante, at 7.  But none of that matters because 
Harper III ’s final judgment mooted the Elections Clause is-
sue in this case by dismissing plaintiffs-respondents’ claims
on alternative state-law grounds.3  Likewise, the idea that 

—————— 

3 Incidentally, the majority seriously errs when it says that Harper III 
“reaffirmed” Harper I ’s Elections Clause holding, ante, at 9, apparently 
referencing Harper  III ’s  statement  that  “[t]he  General Assembly  exer-
cises  [redistricting]  authority  subject  to  the  express  limitations  in  our 
constitution and in federal law,” ___ N. C., at ___, 886 S. E. 2d, at 422; 
see also ante, at 6.  The only “express limitations” Harper III meant were 
“Article II, Sections 3 and 5,” of the State Constitution, which address 
only state-legislative districts.  ___ N. C., at ___, 886 S. E. 2d, at 422.  As 
Harper III acknowledged, “there is no provision in the state constitution