The Missouri congressional map dispute is back before the U.S. Supreme Court, with an emergency application filed September 22 and opposing responses submitted September 23. The docket showed no decision on the new application when checked at 1:24 p.m. EDT on September 23. Justice Brett Kavanaugh had requested a response by 2 p.m. EDT.
People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn are challenging a federal injunction requiring the 2025 districts for November's election. That injunction is temporarily paused. The immediate issue is whether the Supreme Court will intervene before the pause expires.
Which Missouri congressional map order is paused?
U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark's amended September 22 injunction bars Secretary of State Denny Hoskins and those covered by the order from using any boundaries other than the 2025 map for the November 3 general election. The map restriction matches the September 21 order, but the amendment changes when its administrative pause ends.
The pause lasts until the earlier of September 28 at 5 p.m. CDT or rulings from superior federal appellate courts affecting the injunction's timing and effect. September 28 is therefore not an unconditional waiting period.
The Eighth Circuit had directed that relief after concluding that using different districts for the primary and general election violated Article I, Section 2. Judge David Stras wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part; he would have dismissed the appeal for lack of standing.
The Missouri congressional map conflict also involves the state Supreme Court. Its September 3 decision held that the referendum process prevented the 2025 law from taking effect without voter approval, leaving the 2022 districts governing under state law. The federal order and its temporary pause are distinct from that state ruling.
What the applicants want
In their emergency filing, People Not Politicians and von Glahn ask the justices to clarify that their September 10 stay already prevents enforcement of the replacement injunction. Alternatively, they seek a new stay. Their position is that a lower court cannot restore the same relief simply by replacing a temporary order with a permanent one.
The applicants also argue that the latest Missouri congressional map order creates incompatible commands for election officials. They challenge the lower courts' authority to decide the dispute without a three-judge district court and say changing districts after absentee voting has started would disrupt administration. These are their legal arguments, awaiting the Supreme Court's response to this application.
Why the opposing side seeks denial
The September 23 response from Robert Onder and other respondents argues that the appeals court's merits decision changes the posture from the earlier emergency request. They contend the applicants lack standing, meaning the personal legal stake required to pursue the case, and are unlikely to obtain reversal. They also argue that protecting the districts used in the primary best preserves electoral continuity.
In its own September 23 response, Missouri and Hoskins also oppose a stay, arguing that the 2025 Missouri congressional map better serves stability and the public interest. But the state says returning to those districts would mean missing the federal deadline for transmitting ballots to military and overseas voters.
Hoskins's September 22 declaration says Missouri would seek a hardship waiver under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act if the order takes effect. That is a stated plan, not a granted waiver or a judicial finding of a violation. He says election officials will follow the governing court order.
Florida, Texas and 20 other states oppose a stay in a separate brief. Their Missouri congressional map argument emphasizes candidates' and voters' reliance on the primary districts and the difficulties of changing boundaries late in the election. They invoke the Purcell principle, which cautions against disruptive judicial changes near an election.
Campaign Legal Center and the national and Missouri ACLU foundations support intervention. They argue that the permanent injunction repeats relief the justices already suspended, while bypassing jurisdictional and procedural requirements. Their brief also emphasizes that election administration has proceeded using the 2022 districts.
Voting has already begun
The Associated Press reported September 22 that absentee voting was underway using the 2022 Missouri congressional map. AP also described both sides invoking the risk of late changes: one points to ballots already being used, the other to districts used in August's primary.
The pending application does not itself settle which Missouri congressional map will ultimately govern. A subsequent order could change the timetable described here. Our editorial standards distinguish court decisions from litigants' arguments and date reporting to the evidence actually checked.