Legal experts say they see signs that the Supreme Court will try to back away from a hot potato case that poses big questions about who gets final say over state elections laws.
The case came out of North Carolina, where the GOP-led Legislature argued that the U.S. Constitution makes them — not state judges or bureaucrats — the deciders over elections procedure.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case last year and is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June.
But the high court asked for a new round of briefing earlier this month on the status of the case after the North Carolina Supreme Court said it would revisit the case.
“It’s very likely the [state] court nullifies the prior decision which would remove the Supreme Court case from the docket, so the Supreme Court may not even decide the huge, big, controversial independent state legislature case. It may just fall off the docket altogether,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law.
The case before the justices had been seen as one of the most consequential this term. Liberal activists had said a ruling for North Carolina’s Legislature could upend voting rights protections in states across the country.
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said it’s not yet clear if the North Carolina Supreme Court decision to rehear the case would make the current one pending before the justices moot.
But he said there is probably an appetite on the high court for the case to disappear from the docket.
“A dismissal is certainly possible now, and I’m sure many of the justices would prefer not having to rule either way, at least not yet,” Mr. Shapiro said.
That could mean they may have to decide the issue at a later date — like during an upcoming election year.
The case stemmed from a dispute between North Carolina’s Legislature and state courts over who has final say over drawing congressional district maps. The state’s high court had tossed the Legislature’s map and imposed its own.
The lawmakers said that violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” The lawmakers said that gives legislatures the final say.
The justices seemed skeptical of that position during oral arguments, worrying it would upend checks and balances.
“This is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country, and you might think it gets rid of all those checks and balances at the time they are needed most,” Justice Elena Kagan said at the time.
Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a nonprofit that seeks to uphold the Constitution, said there’s a 50-50 chance the court could dismiss the major case, suggesting the justices might in fact rule on the merits. He noted there isn’t precedent over this type of jurisdictional issue.
“It’s difficult to divine the justices’ motivation in asking for briefing in the absence of the parties raising the jurisdictional issue,” Mr. Levey said. “In any case, the March 20 deadline for briefing leaves the Court plenty of time to decide the case this term if that’s what it wants to do.”
The case is Moore v. Harper.
• Stephen Dinan contributed to this story.
