HeraldLoop

Missouri — page 3

Place · 74 articles
Share

Coverage, page 3

page 3 of 4

A quick update on the Missouri congressional districting case

Hurray once again for Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his colleagues, who just hours ago benchslapped four lower federal court judges – one district judge and three appellate judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit – in the latest and, we think, final major round of litigation concerning Missouri’s congressional districting map for the fast-approaching November election. (For more on the earlier rounds of this fast-breaking story, see Amy’s Sept. 7 explainer and our Sept. 9 column . For more on Kavanaugh’s latest intervention, see Amy’s most recent piece .) Shortly before the court’s latest, and decisive, order, Vik composed his thoughts for a colleague who was trying to make sense of the dizzying events that have unfolded in the last 24 hours. What Vik wrote his colleague early this morning still applies now (several hours later), and we think Vik’s analysis may help our readers understand what likely lay behind the court’s most recent decision, which did not include any detailed reasoning. Here is Vik’s take, which Akhil endorses entirely: I am surprised, as I think most knowledgeable scholars of federal courts are, that the 8th Circuit left the district court ruling intact. The 8th Circuit panel expressed doubt over its own jurisdiction in the case because temporary restraining orders are not “ordinarily” appealable; but this is no ordinary situation, and when time is of the essence, TROs are, under Supreme Court caselaw, reviewable by higher courts. Perhaps the 8th Circuit acted under such strained conditions that it didn’t think things through very carefully. I do continue to expect that Kavanaugh and/or the entire Supreme Court will weigh in and undo the district court ruling. From my view there are four distinct problems with the district court’s action. First , its reasoning that to use different district lines for the general election would somehow violate the constitutional rights of those who voted in the primary election makes no sense. As I wrote on Sept. 7 even before Kavanaugh first denied Missouri’s stay, if it somehow violates the constitutional right to vote to have the primary voters’ wishes nullified, it would surely violate the right to vote far more to have the November election conducted pursuant to rules that have no legal legitimacy. HB1’s district lines lack the force of law, full stop. These lines cannot be used wrongly in November just because they were previously used wrongly in the primary. Two wrongs do not make (or vindicate) a right (to vote). Second , under the Purcell principle , federal courts aren’t supposed to interfere with state election plans shortly before elections. Purcell is not about whether state courts can act, it is about whether federal courts can. Therefore, the federal district court needed to let state courts and state election authorities do their thing. Third , and related, under a doctrine known as Rooker-Feldman federal district courts cannot try to review state supreme courts; only the U.S. Supreme Court can oversee a state supreme court. The district court here essentially undid an already final state supreme court ruling, and that is a no-no. Fourth and finally , the district court did not pay sufficient respect to Kavanaugh’s denial of the stay on Tuesday. Kavanaugh was presented with the very same – identical – claims that were presented to the district court, and he did not think they warranted interference with what the Missouri Supreme Court had done. While that decision by him may not be formally binding on lower federal courts, the Supreme Court has indicated that district courts should take account of what the Supreme Court has done in the so-called emergency relief docket. And the district court should have followed Kavanaugh’s lead. That’s why we call his court the SUPREME court and other federal courts INFERIOR courts. So I do expect the Supremes will act to properly respect the Missouri Supreme Court’s power to resolve what is essentially a question of Missouri state law. One never knows for sure what will happen, but the course I identify is what SHOULD happen, and I think Kavanaugh’s actions thus far indicate that he understands the law in this area and follows it faithfully.

SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog•Akhil Amar, Vikram Amar10 Sept

Supreme Court grants request to prevent Missouri from using congressional map expected to aid Republicans

Updated on Sept. 10 at 3:44 p.m. EDT The Supreme Court on Thursday morning paused a ruling by a federal judge in Missouri that would have allowed the state to use a new congressional map intended to give Republicans an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in the upcoming elections. In a brief, unsigned order , the court granted a request by the organizers of a referendum on the new map to put a ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark on hold while litigation in the dispute moves forward. The justices’ order, from which there were no public dissents, came less than two days after Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency appeals from Missouri, declined to disturb a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court that barred Missouri from using the new map. With the deadline to send out ballots for military and overseas voters just nine days away, Thursday morning’s order likely means that the state will use the map that it adopted in 2022 – a different map from the one that it used for the state’s primary election on Aug. 4 – for the November elections. The dispute began last year, when – with President Donald Trump’s encouragement – Missouri adopted a new map, known as HB 1. In December, opponents of the state’s new map – including Richard von Glahn – submitted more than 300,000 signatures in support of a petition to put the new map up for a vote in November 2026. Missouri’s top election official, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, rejected the petition on Aug. 4, 2026 – the last day to do so. Von Glahn filed a lawsuit in state court on the same day, asking it to reverse Hoskins’ decision and block Missouri from using the new map. On Sept. 3, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously 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. Hoskins went to the Supreme Court last Friday night, asking the justices to step in. He said that the state was “genuinely unsure whether it can switch its governing congressional map in time to run a timely federal election,” and he argued that the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Von Glahn pushed back, arguing 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. But in any event, von Glahn continued, Hoskins’ federal constitutional arguments fall short on the merits. Kavanaugh turned down Hoskins’ request on Tuesday afternoon without referring it to the full court. Less than an hour after Kavanaugh’s decision was released, Clark issued a temporary restraining order that instructed the state to use the 2025 map. That case was filed on Sept. 4 by Rep. Robert Onder, a Republican who represents Missouri’s 3rd congressional district, as well as another congressional candidate and two individual voters who – if the 2022 map is restored – will vote in November in a different congressional district than they did in the primary election. 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, von Glahn and a group known as People Not Politicians – who had joined the federal case – asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit to put Clark’s order on hold. The court of appeals turned that request down on Wednesday. On Wednesday afternoon, von Glahn and People Not Politicians asked the justices to intervene. They told the court that Clark’s 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.’” If Clark’s order is put on hold, they 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 emphasized, 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 instructed Hoskins and the other plaintiffs to respond by 10 a.m. EDT on Thursday. In his brief , submitted shortly before 10 a.m., Hoskins argued that Clark’s order “ensures that” the state can conduct “a timely and orderly congressional election in 2026.” By contrast, he suggested, putting that order on hold “would change Missouri’s congressional map for a third time in a week—and … would come after the state-law deadline to alter ballots and just nine days before the federal-law deadline to send out military and overseas ballots.” Moreover, he added, “county election officials have already started printing ballots in compliance with” Clark’s order. In an order distributed to reporters at 10:16 a.m. EDT, the Supreme Court granted the request by von Glahn and People Not Politicians to block Clark’s order. In a related proceeding, the Missouri Supreme Court held oral arguments on Thursday on whether to hold Hoskins in contempt of court for sending an email on Sept. 8 that instructed election officials to use the 2025 map. That proceeding began as scheduled , just over 45 minutes after the court’s order; it ended approximately 37 minutes later without a ruling from the state supreme court. In a brief hearing at 3 p.m. EDT, the Missouri Supreme Court found that Hoskins was in contempt of that court's Sept. 3 order that barred Missouri from using the 2025 map. Chief Justice W. Brent Powell indicated that Hoskins had, however, since corrected that contempt by directing local election authorities to use the 2022 map.

SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog•Amy Howe10 Sept

Supreme Court blocks Missouri’s use of GOP-favored congressional map

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked an order that told Missouri to keep implementing Republicans’ favored 7-1 congressional map, which sparked confusion about what boundaries would be used in the November election. By lifting that federal judge’s directive, it leaves in place a state court directive that tells elections officials to return to the existing…

The HillThe Hill•Zach Schonfeld10 Sept

Missouri secretary of state faces contempt hearing amid redistricting fight

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins (R) is set to appear before the state Supreme Court on Thursday as judges weigh whether to hold him in contempt amid an escalating battle over the state’s congressional map.  Late Wednesday night, a federal judge rejected the state’s request to stop the morning proceedings.   “Numerous considerations counsel this Court against…

The HillThe Hill•Sophie Brams10 Sept

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.

SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog•Amy Howe9 Sept

Missouri’s GOP-friendly congressional map returns to Supreme Court

Missouri’s redistricting battle reached the Supreme Court for a second time after an appeals panel on Wednesday refused to halt an order instructing Missouri Republicans to move ahead with their favored congressional map.  A Democratic-aligned organizer, who is attempting to defeat the Republicans’ map by putting it to voters through a referendum, is now urging…

The HillThe Hill•Zach Schonfeld9 Sept

Justice Kavanaugh stands up for state constitutional law in the Missouri congressional case

A crucial case decided yesterday on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket will likely mean that in the upcoming November election Republicans will win only 6 of 8 Missouri congressional seats in the new House of Representatives, rather than 7 of 8, as they were hoping for. In this case, Hoskins v. von Glahn , Republicans wanted the Supreme Court to jump in and second-guess a state supreme court on what is essentially a matter of state constitutional law. It would have been both legally wrong and politically damaging for the court to have done so. Late yesterday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh spurned the poisoned chalice without explanation. No justice dissented, at least not publicly. (Kavanaugh in fact denied the request himself, without referring it to the whole court; he would not have acted unilaterally unless he knew a majority of the court wanted no part of this request.) We applaud this outcome, and we offer a few quick points of elaboration. Under both the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, section 4, and a clear congressional statute on the books , Missouri’s single-member districting lines for Congressional districts are to be determined by state law – including, of course, state constitutional law, as definitively determined by the state supreme court. The Missouri Supreme Court had already weighed in on the relevant state-law issues in Hoskins . (For the details, see Amy’s recent explainer .) There was thus no proper role for the U.S. Supremes at this point. Such is the square command of the court’s landmark ruling in the 2023 Moore v. Harper – a ruling involving congressional districting in North Carolina in which the court aligned with our amicus brief in that case (co-written with Steve Calabresi ) and also built squarely on an earlier Roberts court precedent, Arizona v Independent Redistricting Commission , involving congressional districting in Arizona. Some prominent commentators in 2023 opined that the Moore court had left the door open for U.S. Supreme Court intervention seeking to second-guess state supreme courts in a broad range of future congressional districting cases. We thought that these commentators misread Moore , and we said so back in 2023. Since then – consistent with our reading of the case, and contra the predications of these other commentators – the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to second-guess a single state supreme court state-law ruling involving congressional districting. In Hoskins , the state supreme court was unanimous . It essentially ruled for Democrats even though a strong majority of that court had been appointed by Republican governors. This is what law looks like. Here is another thing that law looks like: What’s sauce for a Democratic goose in Virginia is sauce for a Republican gander in Missouri. When sore-loser Democrats tried to use the Supreme Court’s emergency docket to second-guess the Virginia Supreme Court on a state-law issue in a recent congressional districting case, the Supreme Court shot down the Virginia Democrats unanimously and immediately. Yesterday, the court quite properly did the same thing on the same brisk timeline to Missouri Republicans. The state of Missouri, via its constitution, has chosen to allow the people of the state, in certain specified situations, to weigh in directly on congressional districting before any ordinary state law changing the districting rules may go into effect. This is surely a choice Missouri is allowed to make under the 10th Amendment, the Republican Government Clause , Erie , and the Moore v. Harper line of cases. If the people of Missouri don’t like this system, they are of course free to change their state constitution. The state constitutional provisions at issue in Hoskins have a long and distinguished pedigree. The Missouri Constitution could clearly have prevented the state legislature from implementing ANY optional districting change absent two legislative votes separated by an intervening general election. Given that, the Missouri Constitution can surely take the lesser step of pausing new legislative districting rules in some situations, where opposition among the electorate is particularly intense and seemingly widespread, while allowing new legislative districting rules to take immediate effect in other, calmer and less partisan situations. Under the so-called Purcell principle , the Supreme Court has admonished that federal courts should not upset state-law election rules and practices on the eve of an election, absent a very clear violation of federal law. For a more detailed analysis, advocating for and correctly predicting yesterday’s Supreme Court result, see Vik’s September 7 Justia column . Hooray for Justice Kavanaugh! Hooray for the court! P.S. Shortly after Kavanaugh’s order last evening, a rogue federal district court judge, disregarding both the plain purport of Kavanaugh’s ruling and the clear legal analysis of the underlying issues in Vik’s Justia column, has apparently tried to reopen the door that Kavanaugh properly slammed shut. We urge and expect a quick and stern bench slap of the district court from the Eighth Circuit on its emergency docket and/or from Kavanaugh and the Supremes.

SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog•Akhil Amar, Vikram Amar9 Sept

Elections dispute continues after Justice Kavanaugh turns down request from Missouri to use congressional map expected to aid Republicans

Updated on Sept. 9 at 10:50 a.m. Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Tuesday blocked 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. In a brief order sent to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Kavanaugh – who handles emergency appeals from the 8th Circuit, which includes Missouri – turned down a request from the state’s top election official to pause a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court that bars the state from deploying the new map. Although Tuesday’s order came on the Supreme Court’s interim docket, the court’s ruling likely settles the issue of the maps for the 2026 election, restoring the map that the state adopted in 2022 in the wake of the 2020 census. Missouri was one of several states that redrew its congressional maps in advance of the 2026 elections with the encouragement of President Donald Trump. The new map, known as HB 1, was intended to give Republicans seven of the state’s eight seats in the U.S. House. In December 2025, opponents of the state’s new map – including Richard von Glahn, the plaintiff in the case now before the Supreme Court – submitted more than 300,000 signatures in support of a petition to put a statewide referendum on the new maps on the ballot in the November 2026 elections. The state’s top election official, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, rejected the petition on Aug. 4, 2026, the last day on which he could make that determination as well as the day of the state’s primary election. In Hoskins’ view, Missouri’s constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.” Just a few hours later, von Glahn filed a lawsuit, asking a state court to reverse Hoskins’ decision and bar Missouri from using the new map. In a unanimous ruling on Sept. 3, the Missouri Supreme Court granted his request. The state supreme court 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 state supreme court deemed “wholly unpersuasive” Hoskins’ argument that, if the state cannot use the new map, it will 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. Hoskins came to the Supreme Court on Friday night , where he told the justices that “[a] federal-election-administration disaster is unfolding in Missouri” and 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 the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling violates the U.S. Constitution in several ways. Among other things, he contended, it runs afoul of the 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. The Supreme Court, he wrote, “has never held that just 3.3% of a State’s voters can unilaterally suspend a disfavored congressional map by submitting a referendum petition.” The Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling, Hoskins continued, also 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. A stay of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling also would not actually provide the relief that Hoskins seeks, von Glahn continued, because HB 1 never went into effect. “In short,” von Glahn reasoned, “under Missouri law, the 2022 Plan is the legal status quo, not HB 1.” If Hoskins want to be able to use HB 1 in the upcoming election, von Glahn said, he needs an injunction – “an order affirmatively establishing [his] authority to use it,” which requires him to meet a much higher bar. But even if the Supreme Court could review Hoskins’ appeal, von Glahn concluded, his arguments on the merits are wrong. His “Elections Clause theory runs headlong into more than a century of precedent recognizing that state constitutional referendum procedures may constrain congressional-redistricting legislation.” And Hoskins, he said, “ask[s] this Court to recognize a right no precedent confers: a guarantee to preserve every consequence of a primary vote through November.” Kavanaugh turned down Hoskins’ request on Tuesday afternoon without referring it to the full court. After Kavanaugh issued his order on Tuesday, a federal judge in Missouri issued a temporary restraining order that instructed the state to use the 2025 map. The order by Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark came in a case filed on Sept. 4 by (among others) Rep. Robert Onder, a Republican who represents Missouri’s 3rd congressional district. Noting that the deadline for finalizing the ballot was 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Clark acknowledged that “[c]onducting state elections in accordance with the Missouri Constitution undoubtedly qualifies as an important interest.” But, he concluded, 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, 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. In a brief filed on Wednesday morning, he told the court of appeals that the dispute came to it in an “extraordinary” “procedural posture”: “Missouri officials may not use the HB 1 districts (because the Missouri Supreme Court has enjoined them) but they may also not use any other map (because the District Court has enjoined them).” Moreover, von Glahn added, the district court case is “collusive” and “feigned.” The plaintiffs in that case “are Republican party congressional candidates and party officials” who are “fully aligned” with Hoskins, the defendant in the case, who “consented to the district court’s TRO without opposition.” 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. Von Glahn's response to Hoskins’ filing is due by 4 p.m. on Wednesday; the state supreme court will hold oral arguments on the question at 10 a.m. on Thursday.

SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog•Amy Howe8 Sept

Missouri organizer urges Supreme Court to leave ruling in place preventing use of congressional map expected to benefit Republicans

A Missouri man on Monday urged the Supreme Court to leave in place a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court that bars the state from using a new congressional map that could give Republicans an additional seat in the upcoming November elections. Richard von Glahn, one of the organizers of a referendum that would put the new map up for a vote on November’s ballot, told the justices that the case “does not present a real emergency.” The dispute began last year, when the Missouri Legislature passed – and Gov. Mike Kehoe signed – the new map, known as HB 1. If successful, Republicans would hold seven of the state’s eight seats in the U.S. House. The move came after President Donald Trump encouraged states with Republican legislatures to draw new maps outside of the normal decennial redistricting cycle. In December, organizers submitted more than 300,000 signatures in support of a petition to put a statewide referendum on the new maps on Missouri’s 2026 ballot. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the petition on Aug. 4, 2026, the last day on which he could make his certification decision and the day of the state’s primary election. In his view, Missouri’s constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.” On the same day that Hoskins denied the petition, von Glahn went to state court, seeking to reverse Hoskins’ decision and prohibit the state from using the new map. The Missouri Supreme Court granted that request on Sept. 3. In a unanimous ruling, the state supreme court explained that “the plain language of … the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum as to ‘any act of the general assembly’ and no exception applies.” As a result, the court concluded, the referendum petition “was legal, sufficient, and timely.” Therefore, the court continued, “HB 1 never took effect” and will not go into effect “unless and until approved by the voters at the November 2026 general election.” The state supreme court deemed “wholly unpersuasive” Hoskins’ argument that the failure to use the new congressional map would create “confusion, expense, and practical difficulties.” “Besides being irrelevant to the secretary’s sole basis for declaring the referendum petition insufficient,” the Missouri Supreme Court wrote, “these arguments are particularly misplaced given the secretary’s delay created” the problems about which he is now complaining. Telling the justices that Missouri was “genuinely unsure whether it can switch its governing congressional map in time to run a timely federal election,” Hoskins came to the Supreme Court on Friday night, asking the justices to step in. He argued first that the state supreme court’s decision violates the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause . That provision, he said, gives state legislatures – rather than the voters who sign a petition – the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections. The Supreme Court, he said, “has never held that just 3.3% of a State’s voters can unilaterally suspend a disfavored congressional map by submitting a referendum petition.” The Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling, Hoskins continued, also 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.” In his response on Monday, von Glahn told the justices 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. A stay of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling also would not actually provide the relief that Hoskins seeks, von Glahn continued, because HB 1 never went into effect. “In short,” von Glahn reasoned, “under Missouri law, the 2022 Plan is the legal status quo, not HB 1.” If Hoskins want to be able to use HB 1 in the upcoming election, von Glahn said, he needs an injunction – “an order affirmatively establishing [his] authority to use it,” which requires him to meet a much higher bar. Von Glahn also argued that neither Hoskins nor the Republican groups that joined the case to support him have a legal right, known as standing, to bring a lawsuit contending “that the Missouri Supreme Court unlawfully displaced authority the Elections Clause assigns to the state legislature.” But in any event, von Glahn concluded, Hoskins’ arguments fail on the merits. His “Elections Clause theory runs headlong into more than a century of precedent recognizing that state constitutional referendum procedures may constrain congressional-redistricting legislation.” And Hoskins, he said, “ask[s] this Court to recognize a right no precedent confers: a guarantee to preserve every consequence of a primary vote through November.”

SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog•Amy Howe7 Sept

Missouri urges Supreme Court to allow for use of congressional map expected to aid Republicans

Telling the justices that “[a] federal-election-administration disaster is unfolding in Missouri,” Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins came to the Supreme Court on Friday night , asking the justices to intervene in a battle over the state’s congressional maps. Hoskins urged the justices to pause a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court that would require the state to use the map that it adopted in 2022 rather than a new map which could give Republicans an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives that it adopted last year and used in its primary elections in August. “No court in American history has ever given such an extraordinary remedy, which inflicts unprecedented chaos on Missouri,” Hoskins contended. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency appeals from the region that includes Missouri, has instructed Richard von Glahn, the challenger in the case, to respond by noon EDT on Monday – a federal holiday, which suggests that the court intends to move quickly on the request. The dispute has its roots in a push from President Donald Trump last year for states with Republican legislatures to draw new congressional maps – generally a relatively rare step outside of the normal redistricting that follows the decennial census. In September 2025, the Missouri Legislature passed – and Gov. Mike Kehoe signed – HB 1. If successful, Republicans would hold seven of the state’s eight seats in the U.S. House. On Dec. 9, 2025, organizers submitted boxes containing more than 300,000 signatures in support of a petition to put a statewide referendum on the new maps on the 2026 ballot. On Aug. 4, 2026, the last day on which he could make his certification decision and the day of the state’s primary election, Hoskins rejected the petition, explaining that the state’s constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.” Von Glahn, one of the proponents of the petition, went to state court, seeking to reverse Hoskins’ decision and block the state from using the new map. On Thursday, the Missouri Supreme Court granted that request. In a unanimous ruling, the state supreme court explained that “the plain language of … the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum as to ‘any act of the general assembly’ and no exception applies.” As a result, the court concluded, the referendum petition “was legal, sufficient, and timely.” The state supreme court rejected Hoskins’ argument that allowing the referendum to go forward and not using the new congressional map would create “confusion, expense, and practical difficulties,” calling it “wholly unpersuasive.” Among other things, the court suggested, Hoskins himself created these problems by delaying his action on the referendum petition until the last day to do so. Hoskins, the state court said, also fundamentally misunderstood the status of HB 1 pending the vote on the referendum. The new map does not become law unless a majority of the voters approve, the state court stressed; “the 2022 map is the only map in effect.” In his filing on Friday night, Hoskins argued that the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision violates the U.S. Constitution’s elections clause . That provision, he said, gives state legislatures – not a small number of voters who sign a petition – the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections. The Supreme Court, he said, “has never held that just 3.3% of a State’s voters can unilaterally suspend a disfavored congressional map by submitting a referendum petition.” The state supreme court’s ruling, he continued, also 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.” Hoskins suggested that the state was “genuinely unsure whether it can switch its governing congressional map in time to run a timely federal election.” By contrast, he emphasized, von Glahn “will get his referendum vote on Missouri’s congressional map regardless of what this Court does. The only question is whether he (joined by a small minority of the State’s voters) can void a congressional map before he gets his vote.” Finally, stressing the importance of “much needed clarity” for “confused election officials,” Hoskins asked the justices to enter an administrative stay – that is, an immediate pause of the state supreme court’s ruling to give them time to consider his request.

SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog•Amy Howe5 Sept

Chinese National Sentenced to Six Months After Unlawfully Photographing Whiteman AFB

Authorities said Wu’s repeated photography of Whiteman AFB’s infrastructure, including after a warning, distinguished the case from ordinary aircraft photography. Qilin Wu, the Chinese national who in January was charged with unlawfully photographing Whiteman AFB, Missouri, home to the U.S. Air Force’s B-2 Spirit bombers, was sentenced to six months in federal custody by U.S. […]

The AviationistThe Aviationist•Parth Satam15 Aug