It’s understandable if you’re confused by the absolute chaos surrounding which Missouri congressional map will be used in the 2026 midterm elections. After the Supreme Court weighed in on September 10, the question appears settled for the moment.
Here’s a quick rundown of the legal battle so far. We’ll go into more detail below, so keep reading if you don’t follow everything at first.
The dispute centers on HB 1, a Republican-backed mid-decade redistricting law. The plan reshaped the Kansas City-area district represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver and was widely expected to give Republicans a better chance of winning an additional House seat. Opponents used Missouri’s referendum process to challenge the law before it took effect, setting off overlapping court battles over whether HB 1 or Missouri’s 2022 congressional map should govern the November election.
The Quick Summary: SCOTUS’ Stay
On September 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) responded to an emergency application by staying a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a federal district judge on September 8. The upshot: The 2022 map will likely govern the 2026 midterm elections, and Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins subsequently directed local election authorities to use it. However, SCOTUS’ emergency order did not resolve the case on the merits.
Here’s the timeline:
- Before September 3: In response to HB 1, petition organizers submitted more than 300,000 signatures. Hoskins initially rejected the petition, arguing that congressional maps are exempt from public referendums. Advocacy groups, including People Not Politicians, challenged that decision in state court. The case was called von Glahn v. Hoskins, with Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins sued over his refusal to allow the referendum to move forward.
- September 3: The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously held that Missouri’s Constitution permits a referendum on HB 1. Because the petition was valid and timely, the court ruled that HB 1 never took effect and that the 2022 congressional map would remain in use unless voters approved HB 1 in the November 2026 election.
- September 4: Secretary of State Denny Hoskins sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. Separately, federal litigation involving candidates and the state developed around the consequences of switching maps after the August primary.
- September 8: Justice Kavanaugh denied Hoskins’s emergency application to stay the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Later that day, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark entered a TRO preventing Missouri from using any map other than HB 1 for the November 3 general election.
- September 9: The Eighth Circuit denied the intervenors’ motion to stay the TRO, meaning that HB 1 would have governed absent Supreme Court intervention. The court denied the stay request because it concluded that it either lacked jurisdiction over the appeal or that, on the briefing then before it, the stay factors had not been met.
- September 10: The Supreme Court granted People Not Politicians’ application and stayed Judge Clark’s TRO pending appellate proceedings. The order was unsigned, as is typical of emergency orders, and there were no dissents.
With us so far? It’s okay to feel whiplash. Here’s some background and context.
A Step Back
As a quick reminder, voting maps have historically been redrawn after each U.S. census to reflect changes in each district’s makeup. In recent decades, redistricting plans have become more specific and unusually shaped as state legislators use maps that give their party the best chance to win.
This contentious process is known as “gerrymandering.” Missouri adopted HB 1 amid a broader partisan push for mid-decade congressional redistricting. The new map was backed by President Donald Trump and was expected to improve Republicans’ chances of winning an additional House seat.
Missouri was one of the Republican-controlled states that redrew its congressional map amid Trump’s push, leading to the enactment of HB 1. The plan altered district lines in Kansas City, increasing the likelihood that Cleaver’s seat would flip to a Republican candidate.
Opponents of the new map gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures on a referendum petition. They argued that citizens have the right to reject acts of the General Assembly through a veto referendum before those acts take permanent effect. Despite receiving the required number of signatures, Hoskins declined to certify the referendum petition. He publicly maintained that congressional redistricting was not legally subject to Missouri’s referendum process.
On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in von Glahn v. Hoskins that the timely referendum petition prevented HB 1 from taking effect unless voters approve it in the November election.
A Federal Court Steps In
After Justice Kavanaugh declined to disturb the state-court ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a TRO in a separate federal action brought by Rep. Robert Onder, another candidate, and voters. The plaintiffs argued that changing maps after the August primary would disrupt the election and affect the relationship between the primary and general elections.
Judge Clark’s TRO required Missouri to use HB 1 for the November election. That prompted the Missouri Supreme Court to order Hoskins to show cause why his directive to use HB 1 did not violate the court’s September 3 injunction.
On September 9, the Eighth Circuit denied a request by People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn to stay Judge Clark’s TRO. The court stated that it either lacked jurisdiction over the appeal or that, based on the briefing then before it, the parties had not satisfied the requirements for a stay.
The Supreme Court then stayed the TRO. It did not explain its reasoning, and there were no dissenting opinions.
So It’s All Settled Then, Right? Right?
After the U.S. Supreme Court stayed Judge Clark’s TRO, Hoskins directed local election authorities to use the 2022 map. The Missouri Supreme Court found that he had been in contempt of its September 3 order but had purged the contempt by ultimately complying.
Much remains unknown about what happens next in Missouri’s elections. September 8 was the deadline set by the Missouri Supreme Court for the Secretary to take the steps necessary to place the referendum on the November ballot. Under Missouri law, party nominating committees can select candidates for each district.
The parties have argued that candidates nominated in the August primary may remain nominees for the correspondingly numbered district under the 2022 boundaries. That question has not been finally resolved. The legal battles over Missouri’s 2026 midterm elections are just warming up.
