Missouri congressional redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court

Just one day after Justice Brett Kavanaugh left in place a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court that barred Missouri from using a new congressional map intended to give Republicans an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the November elections the opponents of that map returned to the Supreme Court. In a 25-page filing on Wednesday afternoon, Richard von Glahn and a group known as People Not Politicians asked the court to block a subsequent ruling by a federal judge that would require the state to use the new map. Abha Khanna, the lawyer representing the opponents of the map, told the justices that the order by Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark “has been in place for mere hours, but the chaos it guarantees has already taken root.” The fast-moving dispute began last year, when – with the encouragement of President Donald Trump – Missouri redrew its congressional map. The new map, known as HB 1, was intended to give Republicans seven of the state’s eight seats in the U.S. House. Late last year, opponents of the state’s new map submitted more than 300,000 signatures in support of a petition to put the new map up for a statewide vote on the November 2026 ballot. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the petition on Aug. 4, 2026. In his view, the state’s constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.” Von Glahn went immediately to a state court, asking it to reverse Hoskins’ decision and block Missouri from using the new map. In a unanimous ruling on Sept. 3, the Missouri Supreme Court granted that request. It wrote that “the plain language of … the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum as to ‘any act of the general assembly’ and no exception applies.” Because the referendum petition “was legal, sufficient, and timely,” the court concluded, the new map was never in effect and will not go into effect “unless and until approved by the voters at the November 2026 general election.” The Missouri Supreme Court deemed “wholly unpersuasive” Hoskins’ argument that the failure to use the new map would lead to “confusion, expense, and practical difficulties.” “[T]hese arguments are particularly misplaced given the secretary’s delay created” the problems about which he is now complaining, the court wrote. On Friday night, Hoskins asked the Supreme Court to intervene, telling the justices that the state was “genuinely unsure whether it can switch its governing congressional map in time to run a timely federal election.” He argued that (among other things) the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling violates the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause, which in his view gives state legislatures – rather than the voters who sign a petition – the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections. Moreover, he added, the state supreme court’s ruling unconstitutionally disenfranchised “hundreds of thousands” of voters by putting them in new districts where they will be “forced to vote on General Election candidates they had no role in choosing.” This violates the “fundamental right to vote” protected by the Constitution, he contended. Von Glahn countered that the Supreme Court lacks the power to weigh in because the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling had rested only on state law – known as an “adequate and independent state-law” bar to Supreme Court review. The Missouri Supreme Court indicated that Hoskins could not make his arguments based on federal law because he had not originally made them in rejecting von Glahn’s petition. But even if the Supreme Court could review Hoskins’ appeal, von Glahn continued, he cannot prevail on the merits of his arguments. For example, he said, Hoskins’ “Elections Clause theory runs headlong into more than a century of precedent recognizing that state constitutional referendum procedures may constrain congressional-redistricting legislation.” Kavanaugh turned down Hoskins’ request on Tuesday afternoon without referring it to the full court. Less than an hour later, however, Clark issued a temporary restraining order that directed the state to use the 2025 map. The order came in a case filed on Sept. 4 by (among others) Rep. Robert Onder, a Republican who represents Missouri’s 3rd congressional district. Clark acknowledged that “[c]onducting state elections in accordance with the Missouri Constitution undoubtedly qualifies as an important interest.” But, he countered, the challengers in the federal case “face irreparable harm” without a temporary restraining order “because many Missouri voters would have to cast their general-election votes for candidates whom they had no role in nominating.” On Tuesday night, People Not Politicians and von Glahn – who had joined the federal case – went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, asking that court to pause Clark’s order. But the court of appeals turned that request down. People Not Politicians and von Glahn then went to the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon, seeking a stay of Clark’s order. They told the justices that his order “requires Missouri to conduct its congressional election using a map that, under the authoritative decision of Missouri’s highest court, ‘is not the law and has never been the law.’ And,” he contended, “a stay will harm neither Plaintiffs nor the public. To the contrary, leaving the district court’s order in force will cause the very confusion and disruption that Purcell forbids by subjecting election officials to irreconcilable judicial commands on the eve of an election, with a federal court inserting itself to wreak havoc on the State’s elections.” If Clark’s order is put on hold, the map’s opponents continued, “both the public and election officials can proceed under a map that is not marred by legal uncertainty. Officials have confirmed that this outcome is feasible.” Indeed, they noted, immediately after the Missouri Supreme Court’s order on Tuesday, Hoskins “himself instructed elections administrators to implement the 2022 map in accordance with the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling.” Kavanaugh has instructed Onder and Hoskins to respond by 10 a.m. EDT on Thursday. In a related proceeding, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered Hoskins to file a brief by noon on Wednesday to show why he should not be held in contempt of court for sending an email on Sept. 8 that instructed election officials to use the 2025 map. It instructed von Glahn to respond by 4 p.m. on Wednesday and scheduled oral arguments for 10 a.m. on Thursday. Hoskins has asked Clark to block the contempt proceeding in the state court. Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Missouri congressional redistricting dispute returns to the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 9, 2026, 6:48 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/missouri-congressional-redistricting-dispute-returns-to-the-supreme-court/