Missouri Redistricting Dispute Heads Toward Supreme Court Showdown

Missouri's congressional redistricting battle is again approaching the U.S. Supreme Court, with conflicting court rulings creating uncertainty for the upcoming November general election. Over 1.2 million voters participated in the August primary under a map that the state's high court later challenged.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Monday that Missouri must adhere to its 2025 congressional map for the November election, stating that a switch to the 2022 districts would violate the U.S. Constitution. However, the court has paused its order until September 28, 2026, a timeline that allows for potential further Supreme Court review.

Abhishek Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel and former deputy associate attorney general, noted the unpredictability of the Supreme Court's next steps, especially since its previous order lacked a detailed explanation. "It’s unpredictable how they’ll rule, mostly because we didn’t get their reasoning in the last order," Kambli told Fox News Digital. "So, we don’t know the precise reason why they decided to stay at that time."

The Eighth Circuit's decision reverses a federal district court's temporary restraining order that had mandated the use of the 2025 map. The appeals court has now directed the lower court to issue a permanent injunction in favor of the newer districts, altering the legal landscape once more.

"So unless the Supreme Court steps in again, the state will be required to use the seven-one map for this election," Kambli said.

Missouri held its August 4, 2026, primary using the 2025 map. Approximately one month later, the Missouri Supreme Court allowed voters to challenge the map via referendum, keeping the 2022 districts in place for the general election. Kambli argued that shifting congressional maps between the primary and general elections raises significant constitutional concerns.

"You would have had a large number of Missourians who would have been disenfranchised because they voted for one set of candidates in the primary and will be voting for another set in the general," Kambli said. He further elaborated that if candidates were unopposed in the primary under the old map, voters might miss their only opportunity to cast a ballot, impacting the fundamental right to vote.

Conversely, Yale law professor Akhil Amar and University of California, Davis, law professor Vikram Amar have argued that using the 2025 map in November would not validate any rights, as those district lines were never legally established. Vikram Amar wrote on SCOTUSblog that "HB1’s district lines lack the force of law, full stop." He added, "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)."

Kambli attributed the late-stage legal dispute primarily to the Missouri Supreme Court, suggesting the turmoil was "entirely preventable." He argued that the court could have resolved the map controversy earlier, noting the issue remained unsettled even after the candidate filing deadline had passed.

Alicia Bannon, senior director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed to delays by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins as a primary cause of the protracted dispute. Opponents submitted over 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to challenge the map, but Hoskins did not formally reject the referendum petition until August 4, the day of the primary.

"Time passed. And passed further," Bannon wrote for State Court Report. "As early as December 2025, Hoskins asserted in separate federal litigation that a referendum on redistricting was not authorized by the state constitution. But he held off on issuing a certificate on that basis — which would have triggered judicial review — instead going through a lengthy process of verifying petition signatures."

Bannon highlighted the Missouri Supreme Court's criticism of Hoskins' delays, particularly its rejection of his claim that the court had waited too long to act. The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the referendum could proceed and faulted Hoskins for the delay, stating he had "created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains."

Kambli invoked the Purcell principle, which generally advises federal courts against altering election rules close to Election Day to prevent disruption. He argued this principle favors using the 2025 map since it was already used in the primary. "The Eighth Circuit said that the Purcell principles support the injunction, not go against it," Kambli stated.

Bannon cautioned that excessive caution by courts can also lead to problems. "It’s an approach that’s understandable in some circumstances but can also incentivize shenanigans to evade judicial review while harming voters’ rights," she wrote. She suggested that earlier judicial intervention in Missouri could have prevented the eleventh-hour dispute, proposing measures such as moving the primary or setting a firm deadline for referendum petitions.

Regardless of any Supreme Court intervention, the referendum will appear on the ballot. "If the Supreme Court does not stay the Eighth Circuit injunction, there's no doubt that the 7-1 map is what will be in effect for this election. There's still going to be a referendum on the ballot deciding that issue for future elections, but for this one, that's how it'll be decided," Kambli explained.