Supreme Court Blocks Missouri's Congressional Map Change Ahead of 2026 Election

Why it matters locally: This Supreme Court decision directly impacts Missouri's electoral process, specifically determining which congressional map will be used for the 2026 elections and influencing how citizens vote for their federal representatives. The ongoing legal battle involves the Missouri Secretary of State and the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court on Friday declined for the third time in less than a month to permit Missouri's use of a new congressional map for the November 2026 elections. In an unsigned, five-page order, the justices paused a federal appeals court ruling that had directed the state to implement the new map. The Court's opinion, released shortly before 6 p.m. EDT, stated that federal district and appeals courts should not prohibit or require the use of either the 2022 or the new 2025 map for the 2026 congressional election. The 2022 map is currently in use for voting already underway. No public dissents accompanied the Supreme Court's opinion. The dispute began in September 2025, when Missouri adopted a new map. Opponents, including the group People Not Politicians and its executive director, Richard von Glahn, submitted over 300,000 signatures by December 9 to place the new map on the November 2026 ballot for voter approval. Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, Missouri’s chief election official, rejected the petition on August 4, 2026. The state then conducted its August primary using the new map. Von Glahn subsequently challenged Hoskins’ decision in state court. On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely under the Missouri Constitution. The court concluded that the new map would not take effect unless approved by voters in November 2026. Hoskins brought the matter to the Supreme Court on September 4, requesting a hold on the state supreme court’s ruling. Four days later, Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Hoskins’ request without referring it to the full court. Also on September 4, Representative Robert Onder, who won the Republican nomination for the state’s 3rd congressional district, another congressional candidate, and two voters filed a lawsuit in federal court in St. Louis. They sought to reinstate the 2025 map. Onder and candidate Richard Brattin, the Republican nominee for the 5th congressional district, argued that using the 2022 map in November would significantly alter the districts in which they won their August primary nominations. The individual voters similarly contended that they would vote in a different district in November under the 2022 map than they had in August. Following Kavanaugh's decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark ordered Missouri to use the 2025 map. Clark stated that while conducting elections according to the Missouri Constitution was important, Onder and the other plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without a temporary restraining order. He reasoned that many Missouri voters would otherwise cast general-election votes for candidates they had not nominated. People Not Politicians and von Glahn appealed to the Supreme Court for a second time on September 9, asking the justices to pause the district court’s order. The Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned order the next day, putting Clark’s order on hold pending the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ review and any subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari. The Eighth Circuit then heard arguments on September 17 and issued a decision on September 21, upholding Clark’s order. The appeals court instructed Clark to issue a permanent order for the state to use the 2025 map, but also to delay its enforcement until September 28 to allow the Supreme Court to consider the matter. People Not Politicians and von Glahn returned to the Supreme Court for a third time on September 22. They requested clarification that the Court's September 10 order pausing Clark's original order remained in effect, or alternatively, a halt to the Eighth Circuit's ruling. They argued that it was too late to revert to the 2025 map, as ballots had already been sent to military and overseas voters, and September 22 was the deadline for election officials to print and make absentee ballots available. Missouri and the individual plaintiffs supporting the 2025 map contended that People Not Politicians and von Glahn lacked the legal standing to pursue their appeal. Missouri cited the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, which held that proponents of a California initiative to ban same-sex marriage lacked standing to defend the law’s constitutionality when the state declined to do so. The state also dismissed suggestions that it was too late to reinstate the 2025 map. It stated that chaos would persist regardless of the Court's action due to the Missouri Supreme Court’s previous intervention. Missouri asserted that denying a stay and avoiding a fifth change to the congressional map would best promote stability for its voters. In its Friday opinion, the Supreme Court stated that, as a matter of state law, the 2022 map, not the 2025 map, must be used in the 2026 congressional election. The Court also found that pausing the lower courts’ most recent rulings aligned with its September 10 order. The Court added that even without its prior orders, the lower-court rulings should be paused because the election had already begun. Reverting to the 2025 map at this late stage, the Court stated, would introduce “electoral chaos.” The Court also clarified that the Eighth Circuit incorrectly suggested that using the 2025 map was most consistent with the *Purcell* principle, which advises against changing election rules too close to an election. Federal courts, the justices stated, should not interfere with elections at the last minute, but states generally make their own decisions. The Court emphasized that the Missouri Supreme Court did not disturb the status quo because it had indicated in May 2026 that the 2025 map would only take effect if the referendum petition was legally sufficient and voters approved it.