What is the Moore v. Harper law case?

Moore v. Harper is a legal case where the Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, which said that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations on federal elections based on state law. In November 2021, North Carolina's Republican legislature created a redistricting plan that favored Republicans. Democratic voters sued, claiming it was unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The State Supreme Court initially rejected the map, but after the court's partisan makeup shifted, it reversed this decision. Two Republican legislators then filed an emergency petition to reinstate the original map, arguing that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures sole authority to draw congressional districts. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming that state courts can review state electoral laws but can't overstep their judicial review powers.

Which part of the U.S. government was involved in the Moore v. Harper case?

In Moore v. Harper , the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, which argued that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations regarding federal elections. This case originated from a dispute over North Carolina's redistricting plan, where Republican legislators claimed the U.S. Constitution's election clause gave them sole authority to draw congressional districts. The Supreme Court ruled that the election clause does not grant exclusive power to state legislatures, affirming that state courts can review state electoral laws. However, the Court also noted that state courts cannot overstep their bounds in a way that infringes on the legislature's power to regulate federal elections.

What issue about elections was at the center of Moore v. Harper?

Moore v. Harper centered on the independent state legislature theory, which questions the authority of state courts to nullify state electoral regulations. This theory suggests that the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures nearly unlimited power to conduct federal elections. The case arose after the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a Republican-drawn redistricting map, deeming it a partisan gerrymander violating state law. Republican legislators argued that the court's decision was unconstitutional, citing the Constitution's election clause. The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, affirming that the election clause does not give state legislatures exclusive authority over federal election rules and that state legislatures are not insulated from judicial review. The Court held that state courts cannot overstep the usual bounds of judicial review by seizing power from state legislatures to regulate federal elections.

Why was the independent state legislature theory important in this case?

The independent state legislature theory was central to Moore v. Harper because it questioned state courts' authority to nullify state electoral regulations. Republican legislators in North Carolina argued that the U.S. Constitution's elections clause granted state legislatures nearly unlimited power over federal elections, thus invalidating the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Republican-drawn redistricting map. The legislators believed the state court's intervention was unconstitutional, as the power to regulate federal elections should reside solely with the state legislature. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this theory, affirming that the elections clause does not give legislatures exclusive authority and that state courts can review electoral regulations. The ruling ensured that state legislatures are not insulated from standard judicial review.

How did the Moore v. Harper decision affect state courts' power over elections?

The Moore v. Harper case challenged state courts' authority over state electoral regulations. The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, which argued that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations regarding federal elections. The Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., held that the Constitution's elections clause doesn't give state legislatures exclusive power over federal election rules or shield them from judicial review. However, state courts can't overstep the usual bounds of judicial review to take power from state legislatures in regulating federal elections.

What could be the real-world effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Harper?

The Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Harper rejected the independent state legislature theory, which asserted that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations regarding federal elections. The court held that the Constitution's elections clause doesn't grant state legislatures exclusive authority over federal election rules or shield them from judicial review. However, the ruling also stated that state courts cannot overstep the usual bounds of judicial review by seizing power from state legislatures to regulate federal elections. While rejecting the independent state legislature theory, the Supreme Court didn't create a standard for federal courts to use when determining if a state court infringed upon the legislature’s authority.

Moore v. Harper

Introduction References & Edit History Related Topics

Moore v. Harper

law case

Written by

Brian Duignan

Fact-checked by

Britannica Editors

History

Top Questions

What is the Moore v. Harper law case?
Moore v. Harper is a legal case where the Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, which said that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations on federal elections based on state law.

In November 2021, North Carolina's Republican legislature created a redistricting plan that favored Republicans. Democratic voters sued, claiming it was unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The State Supreme Court initially rejected the map, but after the court's partisan makeup shifted, it reversed this decision.

Two Republican legislators then filed an emergency petition to reinstate the original map, arguing that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures sole authority to draw congressional districts. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming that state courts can review state electoral laws but can't overstep their judicial review powers.
2 Britannica Sources
1. major Supreme Court cases from the end of the 2022–23 term: Moore v. Harper
2. Moore v. Harper
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Which part of the U.S. government was involved in the Moore v. Harper case?
In Moore v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, which argued that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations regarding federal elections. This case originated from a dispute over North Carolina's redistricting plan, where Republican legislators claimed the U.S. Constitution's election clause gave them sole authority to draw congressional districts.

The Supreme Court ruled that the election clause does not grant exclusive power to state legislatures, affirming that state courts can review state electoral laws. However, the Court also noted that state courts cannot overstep their bounds in a way that infringes on the legislature's power to regulate federal elections.
2 Britannica Sources
1. major Supreme Court cases from the end of the 2022–23 term: Moore v. Harper
2. Moore v. Harper
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
What issue about elections was at the center of Moore v. Harper?
Moore v. Harper centered on the independent state legislature theory, which questions the authority of state courts to nullify state electoral regulations. This theory suggests that the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures nearly unlimited power to conduct federal elections.

The case arose after the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a Republican-drawn redistricting map, deeming it a partisan gerrymander violating state law. Republican legislators argued that the court's decision was unconstitutional, citing the Constitution's election clause.

The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, affirming that the election clause does not give state legislatures exclusive authority over federal election rules and that state legislatures are not insulated from judicial review. The Court held that state courts cannot overstep the usual bounds of judicial review by seizing power from state legislatures to regulate federal elections.
3 Britannica Sources
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Why was the independent state legislature theory important in this case?
The independent state legislature theory was central to Moore v. Harper because it questioned state courts' authority to nullify state electoral regulations. Republican legislators in North Carolina argued that the U.S. Constitution's elections clause granted state legislatures nearly unlimited power over federal elections, thus invalidating the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Republican-drawn redistricting map.

The legislators believed the state court's intervention was unconstitutional, as the power to regulate federal elections should reside solely with the state legislature. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this theory, affirming that the elections clause does not give legislatures exclusive authority and that state courts can review electoral regulations. The ruling ensured that state legislatures are not insulated from standard judicial review.
4 Britannica Sources
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
How did the Moore v. Harper decision affect state courts' power over elections?
The Moore v. Harper case challenged state courts' authority over state electoral regulations. The Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, which argued that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations regarding federal elections.

The Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., held that the Constitution's elections clause doesn't give state legislatures exclusive power over federal election rules or shield them from judicial review. However, state courts can't overstep the usual bounds of judicial review to take power from state legislatures in regulating federal elections.
2 Britannica Sources
1. major Supreme Court cases from the end of the 2022–23 term: Moore v. Harper
2. Moore v. Harper
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
What could be the real-world effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Harper?
The Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Harper rejected the independent state legislature theory, which asserted that state courts couldn't invalidate state regulations regarding federal elections. The court held that the Constitution's elections clause doesn't grant state legislatures exclusive authority over federal election rules or shield them from judicial review.

However, the ruling also stated that state courts cannot overstep the usual bounds of judicial review by seizing power from state legislatures to regulate federal elections. While rejecting the independent state legislature theory, the Supreme Court didn't create a standard for federal courts to use when determining if a state court infringed upon the legislature’s authority.
2 Britannica Sources
1. major Supreme Court cases from the end of the 2022–23 term: Moore v. Harper
2. Moore v. Harper
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Moore v. Harper, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected (6–3) the “independent state legislature theory,” which holds that state courts lack the authority to invalidate, on legal or constitutional grounds, state regulations pertaining to federal elections and to replace them with regulations of their own devising. The theory has been widely understood as incompatible with democracy, because its general acceptance would enable state legislatures controlled by a single political party to impose voter-suppression measures, including extreme partisan gerrymandering, aimed at limiting the number of elected representatives of the other party. In its decision, issued on June 27, 2023, the Court also held that state courts do not have “free rein” to invalidate and replace state electoral regulations.

According to the independent state legislature theory, rulings by state courts that strike down or order the replacement of regulations of federal elections within their jurisdictions are incompatible with the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for [federal] Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Such a broad interpretation of the elections clause has been dismissed by many legal scholars as eccentric and unsupported by historical practice and court precedent. If the independent state legislature theory were put into practice, common state constitutional provisions guaranteeing free and fair elections would be effectively irrelevant or moot, and more-specific provisions banning gerrymandering and other voter-suppression measures would be nullified. Some advocates of the theory, citing the Constitution’s presidential electors clause (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”), have also held that state legislatures are free to appoint their own slates of presidential electors independently of the outcome of presidential elections in those states.

Moore v. Harper arose in North Carolina in November 2021, after the Republican-controlled state legislature adopted a redistricting plan for congressional elections based on data from the 2020 decennial census. A group of Democratic voters filed suit in state court, alleging that the evident partisan gerrymandering displayed in the new district map (which would likely have given Republicans 10 or 11 of the state’s 14 congressional seats, despite the roughly equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters in the state) violated various provisions of the state’s constitution. A three-judge panel of the court found that the maps were “extreme partisan outliers” and “incompatible with democratic principles” but declined to strike them down for fear of “usurping the political power and prerogatives” of the legislature. In February 2022 the state Supreme Court rejected the map and ordered the lower court to oversee the drawing of a new one; in the process, it pointedly asserted its “solemn duty…to review” the legislature’s redistricting work. Rejecting a second gerrymander by the legislature, the lower court ordered a new map drawn by experts. The state Supreme Court later refused to put the expert map on hold.

More From Britannica

major Supreme Court cases from the end of the 2022–23 term: Moore v. Harper

In late February two Republican members of the North Carolina legislature filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it reinstate the original gerrymandered map on the grounds that the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures sole authority to draw congressional districts. In March the Court denied the legislators’ request, drawing a dissent by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito argued that the independent state legislature theory was “an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law” that the Court “will have to resolve…sooner or later, and the sooner we do so, the better.” In a separate opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority’s decision not to intervene but agreed with Alito that the Court should definitively address the theory at some point. Later in March the legislators filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to review the validity of the independent state legislature theory in light of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s rejection of the state legislature’s original map. The Court granted the petition on June 30, 2022, and oral arguments were heard on December 7.

As a result of statewide elections held in November 2022, the partisan makeup of the North Carolina Supreme Court shifted from a 4–3 Democratic majority to a 5–2 Republican majority. On April 28, 2023, the court reversed the February 2022 decision by which it had voided the state legislature’s original gerrymandered map, holding this time that North Carolina’s courts did not have the authority under the state constitution to consider complaints of partisan gerrymandering. In the view of many legal scholars, that decision rendered Moore v. Harper moot and thus justified its dismissal. The U.S. Supreme Court then asked the parties to the case and the solicitor general to submit briefs addressing the question: “What is the effect on this Court’s jurisdiction of the April 28, 2023 order of the North Carolina Supreme Court?”

In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the Court ruled that the case had not been rendered moot by the North Carolina Supreme Court’s reversal of its earlier finding that the gerrymandered map had violated the state’s constitution, because the state court had not also reversed its earlier order enjoining use of the map in later elections. Citing the centuries-long tradition of judical review and numerous judicial precedents establishing that state electoral laws are also subject to review by state courts, the Court declared that “the Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections,” nor does it “insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.” The Court also found, however, that “state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.”

While thus rejecting the independent state legislature theory, the Court did not attempt to formulate an objective standard by which federal courts could determine whether a state court’s rejection of a state electoral regulation had infringed upon the legislature’s authority under the elections clause. The Court also declined to address the question of whether the North Carolina Supreme Court had acted improperly in striking down the original map, noting that “the legislative defendants did not meaningfully present the issue in their petition for certiorari or in their briefing, nor did they press the matter at oral argument.”

Explore Britannica Premium!

The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.

Brian Duignan

Moore v. Harper

Thank you for signing up!