Missouri’s congressional map fight is hurtling toward another potential Supreme Court showdown, with courts at odds over which districts should govern the November election after more than 1.2 million Missourians voted in the August primary under a different map.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Monday that Missouri must use its 2025 congressional map in November, finding that switching to the state’s 2022 districts after the primary would violate the U.S. Constitution. But the appeals court paused its order until Sept. 28, 2026, opening a narrow window for another visit to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Abhishek Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel and former deputy associate attorney general at the Justice Department, told Fox News Digital the Supreme Court’s previous intervention does not necessarily signal how the justices will handle the latest ruling.
“It’s unpredictable how they’ll rule, mostly because we didn’t get their reasoning in the last order,” Kambli said. “So, we don’t know the precise reason why they decided to stay at that time.”
ELECTION CHAOS IN THIS RED STATE JUST GOT EVEN STRANGER FOR REPUBLICANS AFTER SUPREME COURT RULING
The Supreme Court previously stayed a federal district court’s temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map. The Eighth Circuit has now directed the lower court to enter a permanent injunction requiring the newer districts, putting the dispute in a different procedural posture.
“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 Aug. 4, 2026, primary under the 2025 map. Roughly a month later, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that voters could challenge the map through a referendum, leaving the 2022 districts in place for the November election.
Kambli said switching congressional maps between the primary and general election raises serious 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.
MISSOURI AG FILES PETITION ASKING SUPREME COURT TO REVIVE TRUMP-BACKED REDISTRICTING MAP
“And what’s even more concerning is sometimes those candidates are unopposed so that they miss their only chance to vote as a result of what the Missouri Supreme Court did here,” Kambli continued. “So that’s what’s really at issue — is whether everyone gets an equal voice in a situation where the primary election is integral to the electoral system of the state.”
But Yale law professor Akhil Amar and University of California, Davis, law professor Vikram Amar have argued the opposite. After the Supreme Court’s earlier stay, Vikram wrote on SCOTUSblog that using the 2025 map in November would not protect anyone’s right to vote if those lines were never legally in effect. Akhil agreed with his analysis.
“HB1’s district lines lack the force of law, full stop,” Vikram wrote. “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).”
Meanwhile, Kambli placed much of the blame for the eleventh-hour legal scramble over which map to use on the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing the turmoil was “entirely preventable.”
VIRGINIA GOP, DEMS BATTLE IT OUT OVER REDISTRICTING BEFORE STATE SUPREME COURT
Kambli argued that the Missouri Supreme Court could have resolved the map dispute earlier, noting that the issue remained unsettled even after the candidate filing deadline passed.
Alicia Bannon, senior director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed instead to delays by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins as a key reason the dispute dragged on.
Opponents of the 2025 map submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025, but Hoskins did not formally reject the referendum petition until Aug. 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 wrote that the Missouri Supreme Court’s criticism of Hoskins’ delays stood out, particularly the court’s rejection of his argument that it had waited too long to intervene.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the referendum could proceed and faulted Hoskins for the delay, saying he had “created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains.”
Kambli argued the Purcell principle, under which federal courts generally avoid changing election rules close to Election Day because of the potential for disruption, weighs in favor of keeping the 2025 map because Missouri already used it for the primary.
“The Eighth Circuit said that the Purcell principles support the injunction, not go against it,” Kambli said.
Bannon also warned that courts being too cautious can create its own problems.
“It’s an approach that’s understandable in some circumstances but can also incentivize shenanigans to evade judicial review while harming voters’ rights,” Bannon wrote.
Bannon suggested earlier court action in Missouri could have helped avoid the last-minute dispute, including by moving the primary or setting a firm deadline for the referendum petition.
But regardless of whether the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, the referendum will still be 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 said.
