Moore v. Harper endangers elections in the United States. Now it seems likely to disappear.
3Moore v. Harper, a lawsuit the Supreme Court heard last December, poses the biggest threat to US democracy since the January 6 attack on the US Capitol — although it’s worth noting that even some of the Court’s more conservative members seemed to recoil at some of the case’s implications when they heard oral arguments in Moore in December.
On Thursday, the justices signaled that they are likely to take an off-ramp from this case. The Court released a brief, one-paragraph order indicating that this case may simply disappear.
Moore rests on an awkwardly named legal theory, known as the “independent state legislature doctrine,” which claims that state lawmakers have expansive and potentially unchecked authority to write election laws that favor their preferred federal candidates.
Under the strongest version of this theory, members of each state’s legislative branch have unchecked authority to decide how elections for Congress and the presidency will be conducted in their state, a power potentially so broad that it could effectively be used to hand victory to a particular candidate.
That said, during oral arguments in December, a majority of the Court appeared to reject this most aggressive version of the doctrine. But most of the justices did appear open to weaker versions of the independent state legislature theory. And even under these narrower readings, the Supreme Court — with its 6-3 Republican-appointed supermajority — could give itself sweeping and unprecedented authority to decide the winner of congressional and presidential elections.
But, as Thursday’s order suggests, the Court may no longer have the lawful authority to hear the case. The new order references a federal law which provides that, under certain circumstances, the justices may hear an appeal from “final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State.”
In the Moore case, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina challenged a state supreme court decision striking down gerrymandered congressional maps. These plaintiffs argued that this decision, which was handed down by a court with a Democratic majority, was improper because the independent state legislature doctrine gives the legislature — and not the state supreme court — primacy over the rules governing federal elections.
In the 2022 elections, however, Republicans regained control of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Not long after the new Republican justices were seated, the court announced it would rehear the lawsuit striking down the gerrymandered maps.
But, if the state supreme court no longer stands by its earlier decision in the Moore case, that suggests this earlier decision is not a “final judgment or decree” handed down by the highest court of the state. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s final judgment will be whatever decision its new majority hands down, not the one handed down previously.
And that means that the US Supreme Court most likely will not decide the Moore case. In the likely event that the Court does get rid of the Moore case, that will probably only delay Supreme Court review of the so-called independent state legislature doctrine.
During the 2020 election, four justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — all endorsed versions of the independent state legislature doctrine and appeared eager to fundamentally rewrite much of American election law. The Court has repeatedly rejected this independent state legislature theory over the course of more than a century, but the doctrine started to gain steam as former President Donald Trump filled the Supreme Court with hardline conservatives.
If the Court does get rid of this case, in other words, conservative litigants are likely to still try to raise the independent state legislature doctrine in future cases.
But dismissing this one could also give more time for cooler heads to prevail upon the justices. Because as time passed, supporters of American democracy organized, too. And they even recruited several prominent Republicans and legal conservatives to urge the Supreme Court not to sign onto this attack on voting rights. At oral arguments in Moore, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee whose vote is likely to be decisive if the Court does decide the Moore case, seemed to step back from the more extreme arguments justifying the independent state legislature doctrine.
That said, if the Court gets rid of Moore, that also raises the likelihood that this issue could arise again, perhaps in the midst of a high-stakes dispute that could decide the winner of the 2024 presidential election.
In any event, Thursday’s order suggests that we may not know, for at least a little longer, how a majority of the justices will approach this issue.
The polls said it would be close. The results showed Democrats CRUSHING Republicans. Nate the Lawyer breaks down last night’s election results, compares them with the polling predictions, and shows how a blue wave turned into a blue TSUNAMI.
Why did federal investigators suspect Ilhan Omar of immigration fraud during the Obama administration—and why didn’t that investigation lead to charges?
According to New York Times reporting, FBI and Homeland Security investigators examined Omar’s marriage in 2016 and found some evidence suggesting fraud. The case reportedly stalled chiefly because prosecutors concluded the potential offense fell outside the statute of limitations.
Now, renewed scrutiny raises questions about her marriage, identity, birth date, and citizenship history. In this video, I examine the records and allegations, explain citizenship through a parent, and break down the legal obstacles prosecutors could face.
We also discuss the disputed DNA claims, the marriage and tax-filing timeline, and whether an alleged conspiracy could provide a path to prosecution.
Omar denies wrongdoing. Investigative suspicions and disputed allegations are not findings of guilt. The question is what the evidence establishes—and what the ...
David Sabatini lost his lab, his job, and his reputation after Kristin Knouse accused him of sexual misconduct. Then a Boston jury awarded him $6 MILLION in his civil defamation and interference case and rejected her counterclaims.
What happened when the text messages and deposition testimony faced scrutiny?
Nate the Lawyer breaks down the allegations, the NYU protests, the messages described as “covert operation dethrone,” and the $6 million verdict. We also examine Whitehead’s defense of its investigation, the workplace-policy issues, and the parallels raised in this video with the Cornell 7 controversy.
Is $6 million enough after someone loses their career and reputation? And what responsibility do institutions have to examine the evidence before acting? Let me know in the comments.
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Sexual misconduct allegations—and a $6 million verdict
02:00 Back to the Sabatini case
02:50 Lost jobs, public backlash, and NYU protests
03:40 Kristin Knouse’s allegations and the ...
And We’re Back!
And we're back, y'all. I appreciate every single one of you supporting the channel right here behind the paywall. You get the unvarnished analysis, the procedural realities, and the raw legal breakdowns before the mainstream algorithms try to throttle the reach, shadowban the facts, or bury the story.
The Inside Story of an 11-to-1 Jury Room
Today, we are diving into the exclusive sit-down interview with three jurors from the Lindsay Clancy trial who finally broke their silence—and what went down in that deliberation room is crazy, y'all!
Now, the public saw a hung jury mistrial. But when these jurors walked through what actually happened during deliberations, it wasn't some evenly divided debate over the facts.
It was 11 to 1 for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.
Eleven jurors were ready to sign the forms committing her to a state psychiatric facility. And the lone holdout? The other jurors revealed that he actually admitted during deliberations that he had reasonable doubt, but refused to vote not ...
And We’re Back!
And we're back, y'all. I appreciate every single one of you supporting the channel right here behind the paywall. You get the raw receipts, the unredacted files, and the unfiltered legal analysis before the algorithms try to throttle the reach, shadowban the facts, or bury the story.
The Narrative Completely Collapse
Today, we are diving right back into the Karmelo Anthony murder case out of Texas, and the newly leaked text messages published in full context by the Daily Mail are completely crazy, y'all!
Quick recap: Karmelo Anthony was convicted of murder and sentenced to 35 years in prison for fatally stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in the chest at a track meet. The internet immediately turned this into a massive, racially charged civil rights crusade. Activists rallied, social media commentators took up arms, and an online GiveSendGo fundraiser hauled in over $630,000 for his defense before it was pulled from public view.
Now, his legal team and family have launched a brand-new $250,000 legal defense ...
And We’re Back!
And we're back, y'all. I appreciate every single one of you supporting the channel right here behind the paywall. You get the raw receipts, the procedural breakdowns, and the unfiltered legal analysis before the algorithms try to throttle the reach, shadowban the facts, or bury the story.
The Mirror-Image Case Nobody Talked About
Today, we are looking at a case out of Linn County, Iowa, that is an absolute mirror image of the Lindsay Clancy tragedy—and the legal outcome on this one is crazy, y'all!
For the past year, social media and the legal commentary circuits have been arguing one specific talking point: "If a MAN had strangled his children and claimed psychosis or mental breakdown the way Lindsay Clancy did, he would be convicted of First-Degree Murder and sent to prison for life in two seconds flat."
Well, a man did do it. Almost a year after Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children in Massachusetts, 45-year-old insurance executive Matthew Schlier strangled his 5-year-old son, Jack, to death in Marion, ...
