The North Carolina Supreme Court Friday granted a petition for rehearing for two settled cases. This decision comes after the election of new justices in 2022, which gave the court a 5-2 Republican majority.

The order granting the petition for rehearing relied on North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 31, which allows rehearings of decisions if a court overlooks or misapprehends a point of fact or law. The order stated that the petitioners made a satisfactory showing under Rule 31 that the prior opinions may be erroneous. The order also cited to precedent supporting its decision. Justices Michael R. Morgan and Anita Earls dissented from the order, stating that that order is a “radical break” from precedent. The dissent argued that rulings should “not be disturbed merely because of a change in the Court’s composition.”

In response to the order, Interim Chief Counsel of Voting Rights at Southern Coalition for Social Justice Jeff Loperfido stated:

This certainly isn’t the outcome we’d hoped for, especially in a settled case with the legislators reasserting the exact same contentions they previously argued unsuccessfully, but we will continue to fight for the rights of all people in North Carolina to vote freely and fairly and look forward to making that case again before the new Court.

Additionally, North Carolina House of Representatives Speaker Tim Moore responded to the petition for rehearing, stating:

The people of North Carolina sent a message election day. They clearly rejected the judicial activism of the outgoing majority. I am committed to fighting for the rule of law and will of the voters. It’s time for voter ID to be law, as the people of North Carolina have demanded.

The one case that will be reheard because of the court order is Harper v. Hall. In that case, the court ruled that a proposed North Carolina redistricting map violated the North Carolina Constitution. Specifically, the map violated the state constitution’s Free Elections Clause, its Equal Protection Clause and its Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses.

The other case is Holmes v. Moore. There, the court struck down Senate Bill 824, which required every voter to present some form of photo ID to vote in elections. The court ruled that that statute was motivated by a “racially discriminatory purpose” and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution.

The court will rehear both cases on March 14.