US Supreme Court: Blocks Missouri Gerrymandered Map, Rejects Eighth Circuit

• The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Missouri's Republican-friendly congressional map for the third time, preventing its use in the upcoming midterm election.
• The Court issued a per curiam opinion, chastising the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for reinstating the gerrymandered map after absentee voting had already begun.
• Organizers filed an emergency application, arguing that the Eighth Circuit's decision created unprecedented disruption and disregarded prior Supreme Court directives.
• The contested map would have allocated seven of Missouri's eight U.S. House seats to the Republican Party.
• This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's firm stance against lower court defiance in election law cases, emphasizing the need to prevent 'electoral chaos'.

The Supreme Court underscored its expectation that lower courts adhere to its directives, particularly in election-related matters, warning against actions that could precipitate 'electoral chaos'.

The U.S. Supreme Court has, for the third time, intervened to block Missouri's Republican-friendly congressional map from being used in the upcoming midterm election. In a per curiam opinion issued on Friday, the high court halted the implementation of the redrawn districts, which had been reinstated by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, emphasizing its expectation that lower courts adhere to its prior directives in this ongoing litigation. This decisive action came after absentee voting had already commenced under the contested 2022 congressional map, raising concerns about potential voter disenfranchisement.

The Supreme Court's intervention was prompted by an emergency application filed late Tuesday night by organizers, led by Richard von Glahn, who had previously sought a statewide referendum on the new districts. These organizers urged the justices to nullify the Eighth Circuit's ruling, which they argued represented an unprecedented disruption to the electoral process, especially with ballots already being cast. They contended that the Supreme Court's previous stays were not invitations for lower courts to simply re-package the same relief and attempt to re-litigate the issue.

The contested map, designed by the Missouri legislature following a call by then-President Donald Trump for nationwide redistricting to bolster Republican majorities, would allocate seven of the state's eight U.S. House seats to the GOP. The organizers highlighted the severe implications if the Eighth Circuit's ruling were to stand, noting that voters who had already cast ballots might see their votes discarded or, at worst, be entirely prevented from participating in the general election.

This latest ruling marks another chapter in a protracted Missouri redistricting challenge that has repeatedly landed before the nation's highest court. The controversy began when redistricting opponents gathered over 300,000 petition signatures to put the new map to a statewide vote. However, then-Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft rejected these petitions, asserting that the Missouri Constitution does not permit referendums on congressional redistricting. While Ashcroft successfully defended his decision in a lower court, the Missouri Supreme Court ultimately sided with the opponents, ruling that the referendum petition effectively suspended the new districts, retroactive to the previous December, pending voter approval. The state's highest court mandated that the previous districts, established after the 2020 census, must be used for the general election, despite the new districts having been utilized in the August primary.

State officials subsequently filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court just days before the deadline for November ballot changes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, denied this emergency relief earlier in the month, thereby allowing the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling to stand. However, a lower court, identified as the Eighth Circuit in the Supreme Court's latest opinion, quickly reinstated the GOP-friendly maps, directly contravening the state supreme court's directive and Justice Kavanaugh's decision. This act of defiance necessitated the current, third emergency application to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's per curiam opinion did not mince words, chastising the appeals court for compelling its repeated intervention. The justices stated that their conclusion regarding the Eighth Circuit's error should come as no surprise, given their two previous orders in this litigation. While blocking the gerrymandered map, the Court also acknowledged that ordering a reversion to a '2025 map' at such a late stage in an ongoing election would itself create 'electoral chaos,' indicating a careful balancing act to prevent further disruption.

The Supreme Court's firm stance in this Missouri redistricting challenge sends a clear message to lower courts regarding adherence to higher judicial authority, particularly in sensitive election law matters. The repeated intervention underscores the high court's willingness to act decisively to prevent what it perceives as lower court defiance and to maintain stability in electoral processes. This case highlights the critical role of the US Supreme Court in overseeing the implementation of its rulings and preventing 'electoral chaos' when lower tribunals appear to disregard established precedents or directives.

For lawyers advising on election law or constitutional challenges to redistricting, this ruling reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not tolerate attempts by lower courts to circumvent or re-package relief already addressed in prior orders. The Court's actions demonstrate a commitment to upholding its rulings on gerrymandered maps and ensuring that the integrity of the election process is maintained, even when faced with complex, last-minute challenges. This precedent is particularly relevant in ongoing redistricting battles across the nation, signaling that judicial oversight will be robust in preventing perceived abuses of the redistricting process.

Lawyers advising on election law or constitutional challenges to redistricting must note the Supreme Court's firm stance against lower court defiance regarding its prior orders, especially in emergency applications. This case reinforces the high court's willingness to intervene to prevent 'electoral chaos' and uphold its rulings on gerrymandered maps, setting a precedent for judicial oversight in ongoing redistricting battles.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service