[1] Federal courts can still evaluate redistricting maps for racial gerrymandering under both the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Multiple lawsuits were filed against the leaders of the North Carolina legislature in November 2021 on claims that the maps were gerrymandered both by race and by party.

[7] On February 25, 2022, the General Assembly sought a stay for the newly drawn maps pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, to allow for review of the Elections Clause issue.

[10]The theory is based on the reading that Article I implies that only state legislatures may make decisions related to election law and prevents courts or the executive branch from challenging them.

[15] The North Carolina speaker of the House, president pro tempore of the Senate, and other members of the General Assembly subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.

[21] Moore v. Harper had the potential to be declared moot due to the change of ruling at the state level, altering the basis of the case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

He was joined by Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"[25][26] Ian Millhiser of Vox noted that Thomas's dissent rejected an "extreme version" of the independent state legislature theory that would prevent governors from vetoing elections bills.

[27] While legal experts agree the decision struck down ISL, there is some debate about language related to the role of federal courts in election disputes.

[26] Moore v. Harper has been called one of the highest-profile cases the Supreme Court has taken in recent years, and could have been a landmark decision if decided in favor of supporting ISL.

[15][25] The case had the potential to have significant impact on federal elections[17] and affect efforts to make gerrymandering illegal or remove restrictions on voting.

[30] Democracy Docket estimated that at least 28 separate contemporaneous lawsuits in state court systems about congressional district maps would be affected by the outcome of Moore v.