Opponents of the Missouri congressional redistricting returned to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, one day after Justice Brett Kavanaugh left in place a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court that blocked the state from using a new congressional map intended to add a Republican seat in the U.S. House in November. In a 25-page application, Richard von Glahn and the group People Not Politicians asked the justices to halt a subsequent federal district court order that would require Missouri to use the disputed map.
Abha Khanna, counsel for the challengers, told the court that Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark’s order “has been in place for mere hours, but the chaos it guarantees has already taken root.”
Missouri congressional redistricting and the path to the courts
The dispute traces back to last year, when Missouri, encouraged by former President Donald Trump, enacted a congressional plan known as HB 1 that aimed to give Republicans seven of the state’s eight U.S. House seats.
Late last year, opponents turned in more than 300,000 signatures to place the new map on the November 2026 statewide ballot. On Aug. 4, 2026, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the referendum petition, asserting that the state constitution does not allow a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.
Von Glahn sued in state court to overturn Hoskins’ decision and to prevent the state from using the new map. On Sept. 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously agreed.
It held that the plain language of the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum on any act of the General Assembly, that the petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, and that the map therefore never took effect and will not take effect unless approved by voters in November 2026.
The court dismissed as “wholly unpersuasive” Hoskins’ contention that not using the new map would cause confusion, cost, and practical difficulties, noting that any problems were exacerbated by delays attributed to the secretary.
Competing federal and state rulings escalate the clash
On Friday night, Hoskins asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the state was uncertain whether it could change maps in time for federal elections and that the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling violates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause by allowing a voter referendum process to constrain the legislature’s authority over the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections.
He also argued that moving voters into new districts for the general election would disenfranchise “hundreds of thousands” who did not participate in nominating those candidates, violating the constitutional right to vote.
Von Glahn responded that the Supreme Court could not review the case because the Missouri Supreme Court decision rested on state law grounds that are adequate and independent of federal law. The state court, he said, indicated Hoskins could not rely on federal arguments he did not raise when rejecting the referendum petition.
Even if review were possible, von Glahn argued, Hoskins’ Elections Clause theory conflicts with more than a century of precedent recognizing that state constitutions, including referendum procedures, may constrain congressional redistricting legislation.
Kavanaugh denied Hoskins’ request on Tuesday afternoon without referring it to the full court.
Less than an hour later, Judge Clark issued a temporary restraining order directing Missouri to use the 2025 map in a federal case filed Sept. 4 that included Rep. Robert Onder, a Republican representing the 3rd Congressional District.
Clark acknowledged the state’s interest in conducting elections in accordance with its constitution, but concluded the federal plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without relief because many voters would be required to vote in the general election for candidates they had no role in nominating.
People Not Politicians and von Glahn sought an immediate pause from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit on Tuesday night. The appeals court denied the request.
Emergency bid to the justices and Purcell concerns
The challengers then asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to stay Clark’s order. They argued that it compels Missouri to run its congressional election using a map that, under the Missouri Supreme Court’s binding decision, “is not the law and has never been the law.”
They said a stay would not harm the federal plaintiffs or the public, and warned that leaving the federal order in place would create the kind of late-breaking election disruption the Purcell principle cautions against by subjecting state officials to conflicting commands on the eve of voting.
If Clark’s order is put on hold, they wrote, election officials and the public can proceed under a map free of legal uncertainty. They noted that immediately after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, Hoskins instructed local officials to implement the 2022 map consistent with the state court’s decision.
Kavanaugh directed Onder and Hoskins to respond by 10 a.m. EDT on Thursday.
Related contempt proceedings in state court
In a parallel development, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered Hoskins to explain by noon on Wednesday why he should not be held in contempt for a Sept. 8 email directing election officials to use the 2025 map. The court instructed von Glahn to respond by 4 p.m. Wednesday and set oral arguments for 10 a.m. Thursday.
Hoskins has asked Judge Clark to block the state court’s contempt proceeding.
Earlier coverage of the dispute can be found in Missouri congressional map fight heads to the Supreme Court, which details prior stages of the litigation.
The Supreme Court’s handling of the dispute will be closely watched alongside other election-related cases on its docket, and updates will be posted on the Court’s official website at supremecourt.gov as new orders are released.
At the state level, information about Missouri election administration and official directives from the secretary’s office is available through the Missouri Secretary of State.