Tag: politics

  • Missouri Must Use 2022 Congressional Map, per Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a district court injunction and an appeals court mandate and order that would have required Missouri to use a 2025 redrawn congressional map in the upcoming midterm election. Under the ruling, Missouri must use its 2022 map.

    The ruling ends the extraordinary year-long effort by the Missouri secretary of state to use a redrawn map that would favor Republicans–in violation of state law.

    The case started last fall, when the Missouri legislature redrew its congressional map to net Republicans one seat from the state. Opponents filed a petition in December 2025 to put the new map to a referendum. Under state law, if the petition signatures were valid, the petition would halt the new map, unless and until Missouri voters approved it in an election.

    The secretary of state took no action on the petition, however, and instead ran the state’s primary election using the new 2025 map. At the same time, he announced that the petition was invalid on the ground that redistricting is not subject to a referendum under state law.

    The state supreme court unanimously disagreed. The state supreme court ruled that redistricting is, indeed, subject to a referendum under state law. Moreover, it held that the 2025 map was never valid under state law (because of the petition), and it ordered the secretary of state to use the 2022 map in the upcoming general election.

    The secretary of state then asked the Supreme Court to stay the Missouri supreme court ruling, arguing that it violated the U.S. Constitution. (He claimed that using the 2025 map for the primary and the 2022 map for the general would violate equal protection and the method of election for members of the House.) Justice Kavanaugh denied the request.

    Soon after, a federal district court in Missouri ruled for the secretary of state and ordered the state to use the 2025 map in the general election. The Supreme Court stayed that order.

    Then the Eighth Circuit ordered the district court to enter a permanent injunction requiring the state to use the 2025 map.

    The Supreme Court on Friday stayed that order. The Court understated it: “Given this Court’s two prior orders in this litigation, our conclusion that this was error should come as no surprise.”

  • Supreme Court Stays District Court Ruling in Missouri Redistricting Saga

    The Supreme Court stayed the district court ruling that paved the way for Missouri to use its 2025 congressional map in the upcoming midterm elections.

    The Court ruling and other, related moves mean that Missouri will use its earlier 2022 congressional map, and not its redrawn 2025 map, which was designed to net Republicans one congressional seat in the state.

    The Supreme Court order, issued without noted dissent, is a rebuke to the Missouri secretary of state’s efforts to manipulate the state referendum process and state and federal courts. On that score, the Missouri Supreme Court yesterday held the secretary of state in contempt for directing local election officials to use an illegal map (the 2025 map). The court then ruled that he remedied the contempt by subsequently ordering officials to use the 2022 map.

  • Missouri Gerrymandering Case Goes (Again) to the Supreme Court

    After the district court ruled in favor of the secretary of state and issued a TRO, opponents of the state’s 2025 gerrymandered congressional map sought an emergency stay at the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit declined, writing that “we either lack jurisdiction over the appeal or, based on the briefing we have so far, the stay factors have not been met.”

    Opponents immediately sought a stay at the Supreme Court, going again to Justice Kavanaugh. The Court ordered responses by 10 a.m. on Thursday.

  • Federal Court Orders Gerrymandered Map in Missouri

    Soon after Justice Kavanaugh declined to stay a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that ordered the state to use its 2022 congressional map, a federal district court ordered the state to use its 2025 gerrymandered map. (Opponents of the 2025 gerrymandered map filed an emergency motion for a stay in the Eighth Circuit. No word yet from that court.) In response, the secretary of state announced that the state would comply with the federal district court and use its 2025 gerrymandered map. (The deadline for finalizing the ballot was yesterday.) And in response to that, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the secretary of state to appear tomorrow for a contempt hearing.

    The federal district court ruling seems in tension, at least, with Justice Kavanaugh’s decision not to stay the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. If the Eighth Circuit and, ultimate, the Supreme Court think so, too, they’ll probably stay this district court ruling and reinstate the 2022 map for the general election.

    The district court held that the Missouri Supreme Court’s order to use the state’s earlier 2022 congressional map violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause.

    As to Article I, Section 2, which says that the people elect House members every two years, the court held that primary elections are an integral part of general elections. And because the state used its 2025 gerrymandered map in the primary election, it had to use that same map in the general election. The court said it didn’t matter that the state’s use of the 2025 map in the primary election was illegal (as the state supreme court held), because voters voted in the primaries based on the 2025 map and “based on the parameters set by Missouri’s highest election authority, the Secretary of State.” (Pause for a moment to consider the implications of that holding. It would apparently allow the secretary of state to use any map they wanted in the primary (or potentially to take any other election-related measure), irrespective of its legality, and then force that map (or even that measure) on the electorate in the general.)

    As to equal protection, the court held that the state supreme court order would classify voters into two groups–“those who happen to stay in their [2025-map] congressional district, and those who do not.” The court held that “[s]witching maps now would deprive many Missourians of their equal vote in the primaries . . . .” (This theory could also have sweeping implications.)

    We expect the Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court to move quickly, though no word yet.

  • Missouri Must Use its 2022 Congressional Map in the Midterms

    Justice Kavanaugh today denied the Missouri secretary of state’s application for a stay of a state supreme court ruling that ordered the state to use its 2022 congressional map (and not its 2025 newly gerrymandered map) in the upcoming midterm elections.

    The upshot is that Missouri cannot use its 2025 newly gerrymandered map, which was designed to net Republicans one House seat in the state. Instead, it has to use its earlier 2022 map.

    The case started on September 12, 2025, when the state legislature enacted a new, aggressively gerrymandered map, “HB1,” as part of the mid-census redistricting wave set off by red states. Opponents of the measure quickly submitted a referendum petition to override HB1 to the secretary of state, who approved it for circulation. On December 9, two days before HB1 was set to take effect, organizers submitted over 300,000 signatures in opposition to HB1. Under state law, the secretary then had to determine whether the submission complied with state law and to issue a certificate of sufficiency or insufficiency by August 4, 2026.

    At 4:00 p.m. on August 4, just before the deadline and the same day the state used HB1 in the primaries, the secretary issued a certificate of insufficiency on the ground that “the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.”

    One of the referendum’s supporters, Richard von Glahn, immediately sued, seeking reversal of the secretary’s certification decision and an injunction preventing the secretary from using HB1.

    The Missouri Supreme Court ruled for von Glahn. The court held that under the Missouri Constitution HB1 was never the law. According to the court, that’s because von Glahn filed a legal, sufficient, and timely referendum petition before HB1 was set to take effect. In such a circumstance, the state constitution provides that HB1 would not become law unless and until voters approved it.

    The state high court then ordered the state to use the earlier, 2022 congressional map in the upcoming midterm elections and to put the referendum on HB1 on the ballot.

    The secretary of state, through the state attorney general, sought a stay at the Supreme Court. They argued that the state had already used HB1 in the primaries, and that using the earlier map in the general election would violate the Elections Clause and deprive some voters of their right to vote.

    Justice Kavanaugh rejected their application. Notably, he rejected it without explanation and without referring it to the entire Court.

  • Fifth Circuit: No Constitutional Right to Clean Water

    The Fifth Circuit ruled on Friday that the Constitution does not protect a right to clean water or to truthful information from public officials about contaminants in drinking water.

    The en banc ruling means that Jackson, Mississippi officials are off the hook for causing lead to leach into the City’s drinking water.

    The case, Sterling v. City of Jackson, arose when residents sued the City for acts and failures that caused lead to leach into the municipal drinking-water supply. The plaintiffs brought substantive due process claims and state-law claims against the City and its officials, including claims based on a fundamental right to bodily integrity.

    The en banc court rejected the constitutional claims. According to the court, the plaintiffs’ claimed rights–the rights “to not be exposed to water that was contaminated as a result of the acts or omissions of public officials and to truthful information from public officials about the presence of contaminants in municipally supplied drinking water”–weren’t rooted in our nation’s history and tradition, and therefore didn’t constitute fundamental rights under substantive due process.

    As to the clean-water claim, the court said that nothing in the Constitution requires the government to provide services, or to provide them competently: “The Constitution forbids municipalities from depriving individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law–it does not impose affirmative obligations on the City.” Moreover, the court said that it wouldn’t shoehorn a (new) right to clean water into an (existing) right to bodily integrity, because any interest in clean water is “wholly different from [recognized violations of bodily integrity like] forced surgery, involuntary medicating, and assault.”

    The court acknowledged that the Sixth Circuit in Guertin v. Michigan held that plaintiffs in the Flint water-crisis case plausibly alleged that public officials violated their right to bodily integrity. But the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning: the Fifth Circuit said that the right to bodily integrity was too important to “weaken” it by including a new right to clean water.

    As to the right-to-information claim, the court said that nothing in precedent or history establishes a right to receive accurate information from public officials.

    The court went on to hold that even if the Constitution protected these claimed rights, the defendants would enjoy qualified immunity, because the rights weren’t clearly established at the time of the defendants’ conduct.

    Judge Haynes, joined by Judges Stewart, Higginson, Douglas, and Ramirez, concurred in part and dissented in part. They argued that the plaintiffs plausibly pleaded their claims, and that they were entitled to discovery. They also argued that the majority wrongly ignored the plaintiffs’ claim under a state-created danger theory–a theory adopted by ten other circuits.

  • Supreme Court Rebuffs Challenge to FCC Lowest-Unit-Charge Notice

    The Supreme Court on Friday rebuffed a challenge to a Federal Communications Commission notice that allowed political parties coordinating with candidates to receive the lowest-unit-charge rate for political advertising through a broadcasting station.

    The ruling means that political parties that coordinate with candidates are entitled to favorable broadcast-advertising rates that were previously available only to candidates themselves. The ruling applies equally to both major parties, but because national Republican committees have a significant financial edge over national Democratic committees, the ruling will favor Republicans in midterm campaigning.

    The case arose in March 2026, when the FCC issued a notice expanding the entitlement to the LUC requirement from candidates to also include political parties coordinating with candidates. Four Democratic candidates for Congress filed an application for review with the FCC, arguing that only political candidates were entitled to the LUC. Two months later, when the FCC still hadn’t taken action, they filed a petition for review in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction, granted the petition, and set aside the notice.

    The Republican party committees then sought a stay at the Supreme Court, and on Friday the Court granted the stay.

    The Court ruled that the Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction, because the FCC hadn’t ruled on the candidates’ application when the Fourth Circuit ruled. The Court also said that the Republican committees would likely suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, because they’d have to pay more for advertising. The Court wrote that this “injury, which implicates their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their political activities freely, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, cannot be remedied after the fact through refunds or reimbursements.” (The Court ruled this summer in National Republican Senatorial Committee that FECA’s restriction on a political party’s spending on campaign activities in coordination with candidates violated free speech.)

    Justice Jackson wrote the lone dissent. She argued that the Fourth Circuit had jurisdiction under a constructive-denial theory–that the FCC’s delay amounted to a denial of the candidates’ application.

  • District Court Halts Trump’s Latest EO on Birthright Citizenship

    A federal district court today issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Administration from enforcing President Trump’s latest effort to restrict birthright citizenship.

    The ruling means that the Administration can’t enforce President Trump’s post-Barbara executive order on birthright citizenship.

    We expected this result, given that President Trump’s latest EO plainly flies in the face of Barbara (and the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law). The only surprising thing about this whole episode is that President Trump issued a post-Barbara EO at all. (But maybe that’s not even all that surprising.)

    Some background may help:

    Recall that President Trump issued an EO on his first day of his second term that purported to deprive birthright citizenship to individuals born to parents who were in the country temporarily or unlawfully. The Supreme Court this summer ruled in Trump v. Barbara that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law. (The Court split 5-4–the slimmest of margins–on the constitutional question. Still, a Court ruling is a Court ruling, no matter the head-count.)

    Only a month after the Court ruled, President Trump issued a second EO purporting to limit birthright citizenship. This time, the EO says that individuals born to a parent who is an “enemy alien” or a “foreign government employee,” or who “engage[d] in a commercial transaction” to ensure that the individual was born in the United States do not qualify for birthright citizenship.

    Plaintiffs sued again, with a class that’s identical to the one in Barbara, and argued that the new EO runs directly contrary to Barbara.

    The district court agreed. In short, the court said that Barbara dictated the outcome here, and that the Administration’s claims that the second EO worked within the Barbara parameters simply misread Barbara.

    The court enjoined the Administration from enforcing the EO against the class “and from taking any other action to interfere with, deny, or fail to recognize the citizenship of any member of the certified class until further order of this Court . . . .”

  • Whistleblower Details Problems with USPS Portal

    A whistleblower described the many problems with the USPS portal for states to upload voter information under USPS regs adopted pursuant to President Trump’s EO on mail-in voting.

    The disclosure comes as the Administration seeks a stay at the First Circuit of the district court’s temporary restraining order halting the new USPS regs. (The district court’s TRO expires on September 10. The district court is moving quickly to decide on a motion for a preliminary injunction.)

    We posted most recently here.

    The Supreme Court previously allowed implementation of President Trump’s EO to move forward, on the ground that state plaintiffs couldn’t then yet show how it would harm them.

    But state plaintiffs quickly refiled to challenge USPS’s actually implemented regulations. (USPS adopted the regs on a Friday before the Court ruled on the following Monday.) It’s this new case that’s now in the district court (considering a preliminary injunction) and at the First Circuit (on the Administration’s request for a stay of the TRO).

  • Supreme Court Allows Construction on Trump’s Ballroom to Proceed

    The Supreme Court today lifted a lower-court injunction against continued construction of a ballroom at the White House.

    The ruling allows construction of the ballroom to continue while the case moves forward in the courts on the merits.

    The preliminary ruling says only that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge construction of the ballroom; it doesn’t say anything about the underlying merits–whether construction is lawful.

    The Court ruled that the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States lacked standing to sue on the ground that one of its members, Alison Hoagland, a Trust member and academic expert on historic American architecture, suffered an aesthetic harm in seeing the construction. The Court said that it hasn’t previously recognized standing in a case like this, where a person asserts “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste” with a defendant’s behavior. The Court said that recognizing standing in a case like this would destroy the “concrete-and-particularized injury requirement” for Article III standing.

    The Court distinguished a line of environmental-protection cases where it recognized standing based on harm to aesthetic interests. It said despite those rulings a plaintiff must nevertheless “show that its claimed injury is ‘concrete and particularized.’” According to the Court, “a plaintiff’s ‘distress at or disagreement with’ a defendant’s actions does not clear that bar.”

    The Court went on to say that the balance of stay factors favored the Administration. (The Court’s deference to the Administration’s asserted national-security interest is notable, especially because, as the dissent points out in a footnote, “the Government informed the District Court that its construction work on below-ground secure facilities was ‘driven by national security concerns independent of the above-grade construction’ of the ballroom.”)

    Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. He started by noting that the ballroom was likely unlawful, because Congress didn’t authorize it. He then argued that Hoagland had standing on the basis of her aesthetic harm under the Court’s environmental-protection cases.

    Hoagland’s injury suffices for standing. A historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys, just as an environmentalist can sustain a concrete, particularized aesthetic injury from the extinction of a particular animal or the transformation of a particular forest or river that he regularly enjoys. With the Court’s rejection of Hoagland’s standing today, however, it now is the case that “I want to look at a crocodile” can adequately answer the ever critical “what’s it to you?” question of Article III standing, while “I want to look at the White House” cannot–no matter how distinctive the particular viewer’s interest in looking at it may be.

    So if the Trust and Hoagland don’t have standing, who does? Congress may be able to assert standing to sue on the ground that the Administration is acting contrary to validly enacted law (by Congress). Don’t look for that to happen with this, Congress, though. Maybe the next one . . . .