SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Case Could Affect Outcomes of All Future Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on its last day this session to hear a North Carolina case that observers already believe will have major implications on elections moving forward.

At issue is whether North Carolina Republican lawmakers have the authority to draw what would amount to a heavily partisan congressional map without being interfered with by state judges, according to Just the News.

“The decision could impact future congressional and presidential elections. The high court will take up the case when its next term begins in October,” the outlet , adding:

The case of Moore vs. Harper asks the court to uphold the concept – known as the “independent state legislature” theory – that state legislators have the sole and “independent” authority to set rules for federal elections in their states, without interference or oversight by the governor or the state judges.

North Carolina GOP House Speaker Timothy Moore asked the high court to consider the case on appeal of his own state Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year to strike down the theory relating to a gerrymandering case.

Critics of the theory argue that it would reduce judicial oversight of election rules.

The theory “would give state legis­latures wide author­ity to gerry­mander elect­oral maps and pass voter suppres­sion laws,” according to an assessment from the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice think tank.

“In an election case out of North Carolina, SCOTUS agrees to review the “independent state legislature” theory next term. Under that theory, state legislatures have broad power to set rules for federal elections, even if state courts say those rules are unconstitutional,” adds the SCOTUS Blog said.

“The North Carolina election case is Moore v. Harper. SCOTUS also adds two other new cases to its docket for next term: Percoco v. U.S. (a case about honest-services fraud brought by a former Andrew Cuomo aide) and Ciminelli v. U.S. (a case about federal wire fraud),” the blog added.

The country’s highest court had another high-impact day of rulings to end its current session.

In the case of West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Court ruled 6-3 to curb the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. The Court’s three liberal justices dissented.

“Republican attorneys general will argue the EPA has no authority to regulate planet-warming emissions from the power sector. Instead, they will say that authority should be given to Congress,” CNN reported.

“The case also has enormous implications for Biden’s climate agenda. With legislative action on climate looking uncertain at best, a Supreme Court decision siding with coal companies could undercut an important way the administration planned to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, in a 5-4 ruling, the court decided that the Biden administration can end the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy.

The case involved the Biden administration trying to end the Trump-era policy that required asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico as their cases make their way through U.S. immigration courts. The Trump administration sent more than 70,000 asylum-seekers to Mexico under the policy.


DeSantis Notches Another Major Victory Over His Redrawn Electoral Map