Moore v. Harper (2023)

The Elections Clause of the Constitution says the times, places, and manner of congressional elections shall be prescribed in each state by its legislature, subject to changes by Congress. Some legal scholars and litigants argued for an independent state legislature theory, under which state legislatures act free of review by state courts under state constitutions when they set rules for federal elections. In 2022 the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the legislature's congressional map as a partisan gerrymander under the state constitution, and legislative leaders asked the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt the theory.

On June 27, 2023, the Court ruled 6 to 3, in an opinion by the Chief Justice, that the Elections Clause does not shield state legislatures from ordinary judicial review by state courts applying state constitutions. The Court added that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review in a way that arrogates to themselves the power the Clause vests in legislatures, leaving federal courts a limited role in policing extreme state rulings. Three justices dissented, arguing that the case had become moot after the North Carolina court, with new members, reversed its earlier decision.

The ruling closed off the broadest version of a theory that critics feared could let legislatures override state constitutions, voters, and courts in federal elections, including in choosing presidential electors. It left open how far federal courts may go in reviewing state court decisions on federal elections, a question that resurfaced in later disputes. Supporters of the decision said it preserved checks and balances within the states, while proponents of the theory argued the Constitution assigns election rules specifically to legislatures.