Episode description

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Moore v Harper.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the U-S Constitution, does the state legislative body, independent of any constraints by state courts or other laws, have sole authority to regulate federal elections? 

The case was decided on June 27, 2023.

The Supreme Court held that the Federal Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.

First, the Court confirmed that it had jurisdiction to review the case. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to overrule its previous judgment did not moot the case because there remains a live dispute between the parties.

Second, the Court concluded that the Elections Clause does not grant state legislatures exclusive authority to regulate federal elections. Judicial review has been an accepted practice since Marbury v Madison, and under the Court’s precedents, the Elections Clause authority of state legislatures is subject to checks and balances provided by the state constitution. State legislatures are not wholly independent bodies, and they are bound by the constraints imposed by the state constitutions.

Third, state courts have the authority to interpret state laws affecting federal elections, but they cannot sidestep federal law. The Court declined to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court in this case overstepped its authority because that issue was not properly before it.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion noting that while the Court need not answer the question of which standard a federal court should employ to review a state court’s interpretation of state law in a case implicating the Elections Clause, there are three standards from which to choose that all convey the same point—deference but not abdication.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito joined, arguing that the question presented in the case was moot, and that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.