In a unanimous per curiam order, the U.S. Supreme Court paused lower-court rulings that would have put a new seven-Republican, one-Democrat map into use, leaving the 2022 map in place while litigation continues.
In its per curiam opinion, the high court granted an emergency application to pause a recent ruling by Missouri-based Chief District Judge Stephen Clark.
State to use the GOP-friendly map earlier this week at the direction of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
# What happened
There were no noted dissents. The high court said its prior stay, issued on Sept. 10, meant the 2022 map would be used unless the Court ordered otherwise, and that the election has already begun under the 2022 map.
# How the case reached the Supreme Court
The 8th Circuit said some Missouri voters would face different general-election candidates than those they selected in the primaries and estimated that more than 1.4 million residents could be affected, citing Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
# Supreme Court's reasoning
The Court emphasized that its earlier stay contemplated use of the 2022 map and that the election was already underway under that map, with ballots printed and absentee and overseas voting started. The justices said the 8th Circuit's order was at odds with the Supreme Court's prior rulings.
On the merits, the Court noted its precedents do not clearly require a state to use the primary-election map in the general election under Article I, Section 2. The justices found the equities and traditional stay factors supported pausing the lower-court orders.
The opinion applied the Purcell principle — federal courts should avoid changing election rules close to an election — and said it "applies with even greater force here," arguing that reverting to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would risk electoral chaos.
The Court also pointed to prior state-court statements and administrative choices. It observed that Missouri's election chief knew the risks of using the 2025 map in the August primary but proceeded anyway.
# Immediate consequences and next steps
Court's order leaves the 2022 map in place for the 2026 congressional election while litigation continues. The decision suspends lower-court directives that would have implemented the 2025 map for the midterms. Further litigation in lower courts and potential additional Supreme Court action are likely, since the Court's stay is an emergency order pending resolution of the underlying disputes.
Expect legal teams on both sides to press the merits of state-law interpretations, the application of Article I, Section 2, and whether Purcell or other equitable considerations control timing of map changes.
In a blow for Republicans, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Missouri from using its new GOP-friendly congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections on Thursday. In its newly released order, the high court temporarily paused a lower court directive issued Tuesday by Chief District Judge Stephen Clark. That temporary res
By Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday drove a stake through the heart of Missouri’s undead congressional map , ordering it be buried for the year and for voters to cast ballots in the districts they’ve used the past two election cycles. In a unanimous decision, the court said that state
By Jason Hancock The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a federal judge’s order requiring Missouri to use a gerrymandered congressional map in November, putting the state back on course to conduct the election using districts drawn in 2022. In a one-page order, the court granted an emergency request from a politica
The ruling is a defeat for Republicans seeking to give their party an edge in the midterm elections for control of the House. It means voters will face a different map than the one used in the primary elections.
By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court stayed the temporary restraining order prohibiting the implementation of the government’s modified SAVE system to determine eligible voters. In its per curiam opinion, it hardly seems like much of a big deal. Lest there be any doubt, section 1373(c) requires DHS to respond to inquir
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.