- 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts spikes Independent State Legislature Theory
- Roberts was joined by two conservative justices in the closely-watched Moore v. Harper case.
The Supreme Court issued a striking rebuke against a Trump-backed fringe legal theory that state legislatures can operate virtually unabated in setting up federal elections.
In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, a broad coalition of justices ruled that the Elections Clause in the US Consitution does not give state legislatures "unchecked" by state courts.
"If the Elections Clause had vested exclusive authority in state legislatures, unchecked by state courts enforcing provisions of state constitutions, these clauses would have been unenforceable from the start," Roberts wrote for the court.
Roberts was joined by two of the court's conservatives, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority, a sign that there is a broader coalition on the court that was ready to reject a theory that could have fundamentally upended US elections.
Then-President Donald Trump and his allies helped elevate the once-fringe election theory in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. His allies previously argued to the court that the theory allowed for state legislatures to appoint pro-Trump electors even if the legally certified election results called for Biden electors. In effect, it meant that state legislatures could nullify their own state's presidential election results, disenfranchising potentially millions of Americans in the process.
For these reasons, J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and conservative legal icon, wrote in The Atlantic before the decision that the case was the most important "for American democracy in the almost two and a half centuries since America's founding."
Luttig, who roundly rejected the theory, warned that if advocates of the fringe theory had won it would have fundamentally changed how congressional maps are drawn and presidential electors are appointed.
The court's liberal bloc, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson also joined the majority. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, he was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Samuel Alito also joined part of Thomas' opinion.
Thomas took particular issue with the high court ruling issuing a sweeping ruling on the case after the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the underlying ruling that was at the heart of the case, Moore v. Harper.
But Roberts made clear that the court was not convinced by such a view.
"In other words, although partisan gerrymandering claims are no longer viable under the North Carolina Constitution, the North Carolina Supreme Court has done nothing to alter the effect of the judgment in Harper I enjoining the use of the 2021 maps," the chief justice wrote.
Roberts said that the high court's decision does not mean that state supreme courts have "free rein" in ruling on election laws. Among the limits are when questions about state law deal with questions of federal authority or law, as applies in topics far beyond election-related laws.
The chief justice conceded that some of these questions are very complicated and sought to limit the ruling from imposing any "tests" by which state courts can interpret the US Constitution's Election Clause.
"We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections," he concluded.
This is a breaking news story. Stay tuned to Insider.com for more updates.