Supreme Court questions jurisdiction in sweeping election law clash | The Hill

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether it can still move ahead in a major election law case involving the authority of state legislatures. The justices are hearing an appeal from North Carolina Republican lawmakers of a decision by the state’s top court, which struck down North Carolina’s GOP-drawn voting maps. But that underlying decision was overruled last week, and the Supreme Court in a brief, unsigned order has asked for additional briefing on whether it still has jurisdiction.

The development is the latest sign the justices may be heading toward an off-ramp in the high-stakes case, which has weighty stakes for future elections. In Washington, D.C., the Republican lawmakers promoted a sweeping constitutional argument that would give near-total authority to state legislatures in drawing congressional maps and settling other federal election issues, known as the independent state legislature theory.

But Republicans in the midterm elections retook control of the North Carolina Supreme Court, and the new majority agreed to rehear the court’s earlier order striking down the legislature’s maps. The court overruled that decision along partisan lines on Friday. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court justices have asked the parties to file additional briefs by May 11 on whether they can still move ahead. The parties wrote to the justices to the justices indicating they would be pleased to do so if requested.

It marks the second time the court has asked for additional briefing in the case. The justices similarly questioned their jurisdiction after the state court agreed to rehear the case.

  • regul [any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    But why does any of that matter? They're completely insulated from all consequences.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 year ago

      The GOP justices live in denial of who they really are. They don't see themselves as vitality important and useful tools for reactionaries. They see themselves as wise sages who interpret the law and they want to be treated with deep respect. Sure, they want to fuck up America to their liking but they they are interested in their reputations, their prestige, and their legacies.

      That's total nonsense to us but I think it's what they actually believe. Of course - each justice cares about that stuff to different degrees. I think Thomas will go fully mask off because 10,000,000s of Americans see him for piece of shit that he is. And he can't spin that away. I assume Alito will start to go fully mask off too.

      But Kavanaugh and Barrett have been awfully quiet. They'd prefer to dismantle America without all this brouhaha.

        • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
          hexagon
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don't understand your point. I already said it's total nonsense to us. I'm talking about their POV - not mine.

          • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            not the guy you're responding to, but i think in addition to their high-minded legacy b.s., i'm getting lochner era court vibes. basically, that shitty reactionary court went bonkers blocking as much of FDR's New Deal as they could, and regular people got so pissed there was a credible threat of "reforming" the supreme court to allow FDR to appoint new members as soon as someone hit 70 years of age.

            suddenly, in all of their considered legal mindfulness, the court started making a few decisions that weren't right-wing / pro-capitalist and the reform threat evaporated.

            • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
              hexagon
              ·
              1 year ago

              i’m getting lochner era court vibes

              I need to stop being lazy and learn about that. It's been on my mind for literally years now. I just bookmarked the Wikipedia page. That probably means I might actually read it around mid 2026.