The Eighth Circuit holds that "Only use of the 2025 map complies with the Constitution and federal law"
Per curiam opinion of a three-judge panel (Judges Loken, Stras and Smith) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
“This Court holds that Missouri’s current plan to use the 2022 map in the November 2026 general election violates the Constitution. Only use of the 2025 map complies with the Constitution and federal law. … Any confusion stems from the last-minute decision by a state court to switch the congressional map.”
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Published per curiam opinion affirming Chief Judge Stephen Clark's temporary restraining order and directing entry of a permanent injunction requiring the 2025 map, with the injunction administratively stayed until September 28, 2026 at 5 p.m. Central time. Judge Stras concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that he would dismiss the appeal because People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn lack standing.
Original text
About this source
One-page unsigned order staying the district court's September 8 order pending the Eighth Circuit appeal and any timely petition for certiorari. The order gives no reasoning.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
Unsigned per curiam order on an application that Circuit Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to the full Court. It stays the Eighth Circuit's September 21 mandate and September 22 order and the district court's September 21 and 22 injunctions, keeps the Court's September 10 stay in place, and says the lower courts should not prohibit use of the 2022 map or require use of the 2025 map in the 2026 congressional election in Missouri. The text of the order shows no separate opinion or noted dissent.
Before the quotation
The appeal was submitted to the panel on September 17 from Chief Judge Stephen Clark's September 8 order requiring the 2025 map, which the U.S. Supreme Court had stayed on September 10.
After the quotation
The U.S. Supreme Court stayed the panel's mandate and the resulting injunctions on September 25.
How this statement is classified
Responding to: Because Missouri held its August primary under the 2025 map, the U.S. Constitution requires it to use that same map in the November general election, and using the 2022 map instead would violate Article I, Section 2 and equal protection.
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is use of the 2025 map in the 2026 general election. The panel holds that the Constitution requires that map and forbids the 2022 map, which supports using it, not merely permitting it. The closest competing label, “Mixed or conditional”, loses because Judge Stras's separate view concerns standing and does not qualify the panel's holding.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should Missouri be allowed to use its 2025 congressional map in the 2026 general election?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“It is disappointing that today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court means Missouri will conduct its November general election under a different congressional map than its primary election. Voters deserved consistency and certainty, and not for the rules to be changed between elections. Nevertheless, Missouri will follow the Court’s order.”Read statement
Supreme Court of the United States
“In short, as a matter of state law, the 2022 map—not the 2025 map—must be used in the 2026 congressional election. … At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos. Purcell protects against such disorder. … And the District Court and Court of Appeals should not order or otherwise require Missouri to use the 2025 map in the 2026 congressional election in Missouri.”Read statement
Campaign Legal Center
“Pursuant to this Court’s orders and the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling on state law, election administration has proceeded under the 2022 map, ballots have already been mailed, and voting has begun. … This Court must once again step in to restore order by granting the Applicants’ requested relief.”Read statement