Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus MOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ET AL. v. HARPER ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 21–1271. Argued December 7, 2022—Decided June 27, 2023 The Elections Clause of the Federal Constitution requires “the Legisla- ture” of each State to prescribe the rules governing federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. This case concerns the claim that the Clause vests state legislatures with authority to set rules governing federal elec- tions free from restrictions imposed under state law. Following the 2020 decennial census, North Carolina’s General Assembly drafted a new federal congressional map, which several groups of plaintiffs chal- lenged as an impermissible partisan gerrymander in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court found partisan gerry- mandering claims nonjusticiable under the State Constitution, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. Harper v. Hall, 380 N. C. 317, 868 S. E. 2d 499 (Harper I). While acknowledging that partisan gerrymandering claims are outside the reach of federal courts, see Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. ___, ___, the State Supreme Court held that such questions were not beyond the reach of North Carolina courts. The court also rejected the argument that the Federal Elec- tions Clause vests exclusive and independent authority in state legis- latures to draw federal congressional maps. The court enjoined the use of the maps and remanded the case to the trial court for remedial proceedings. The legislative defendants then filed an emergency ap- plication in this Court, citing the Elections Clause and requesting a stay of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision. This Court de- clined to issue a stay, but later granted certiorari. After this Court granted certiorari, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision addressing a remedial map adopted by the trial court. Harper v. Hall, 383 N. C. 89, 125, 881 S. E. 2d 156, 181 (Harper II). The North Carolina Supreme Court then granted the legislative 2 MOORE v. HARPER

Syllabus

defendants’ request to rehear that remedial decision in Harper II. The court ultimately withdrew the opinion in Harper II concerning the re- medial maps and overruled Harper I, repudiating its holding that par- tisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims but did not rein- state the 2021 congressional plans struck down in Harper I under the State Constitution. This Court has entertained two rounds of supple- mental briefing on jurisdictional questions in light of the state court’s rehearing proceedings. Held: 1. This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal Elections Clause issue. A corollary to this Court’s jurisdiction over “Cases” and “Controversies” is that 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 (internal quotation marks omitted). The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to withdraw Harper II and overrule Harper I does not moot this case. Prior to the appeal and rehearing proceedings in Harper