News Made Clear · Laden…
AI-ANALYSE & OPINIE
Redactionele illustratieTrump criticised the Supreme Court after three setbacks for Missouri’s newer congressional map. Those setbacks were not three rulings overturned by the full court.
Terug naar de gekozen leestaal
Beoordelingsinformatie wordt opgehaald.
The US Supreme Court’s decision on 25 September 2026 leaves Missouri’s 2022 congressional map available for November’s election, blocking a Trump-backed effort to use a newer map. President Donald Trump criticised the court on Truth Social on 27 September, saying it had “three times now” overruled judges who reached the right decisions. There were three setbacks for the 2025 map, but they were not three overturned rulings by the full court. [1] [2]
On 8 September, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, acting alone, refused to suspend a Missouri Supreme Court judgment. That left the state court’s ruling in place rather than overruling it. On 10 September, the full US Supreme Court stayed a federal district court order favouring the 2025 map. Its 25 September decision stayed further federal orders requiring that map. Those stays determined what could happen while litigation continued; they were not final judgments on every constitutional question. [2] [3] [4]
The dispute began with a map signed by Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe in 2025, with Trump’s support. Missouri’s Supreme Court subsequently held that a valid referendum petition prevented the map from taking effect unless voters approved it in November 2026. The 2022 districts therefore remained legally operative, although the state had used the 2025 districts in its August primary. [6] [7]
That switch gave supporters of the newer map a substantial argument. On 21 September, a federal appeals court ruled that using different districts in the primary and general election violated voters’ constitutional right to take part in choosing a representative. It cited a Club for Growth estimate that about 284,000 primary voters would receive a general-election ballot for a different district. Defenders of the referendum argued that primary votes had counted and the nominees would still appear on the ballot. [5]
11 vermelde bronnen · bekijk bewijs, beperkingen en bronketens.
Log in om dit artikel een duimpje omhoog of omlaag te geven.
Besloten testdiscussie. Reacties zijn meningen van lezers en worden nog niet automatisch op feiten gecontroleerd. Bewerken kan tot 60 seconden na plaatsing.
De volgorde geldt voor hoofdreacties; antwoorden staan daaronder van oud naar nieuw. Nieuwe reacties en likes kunnen de volgorde wijzigen. Ververs voor de actuele rangschikking.
Reacties laden…
Responsibility for the uncertainty was also disputed. The appeals court blamed the state court’s late map change. Missouri’s Supreme Court blamed Secretary of State Denny Hoskins for waiting until the deadline to certify the referendum petition, while the US Supreme Court said the risks of using the newer map for the primary were known beforehand. Missouri’s lawyers argued that signature checks took time and Hoskins had met the statutory deadline. [2] [5] [6] [8]
The Supreme Court said its precedents had not required states to use the same map in both elections. With absentee, military and overseas voting already under way, it warned that another late change could disrupt the election. Missouri argued that returning to the 2025 map would preserve continuity, but acknowledged that doing so would miss a deadline for sending military and overseas ballots and require seeking a waiver. [2] [8]
Trump praised Kehoe and described the effort as a fight for fairness and election security. AP reported that Republicans, who hold six of Missouri’s eight US House seats, intended the 2025 map to help them win a seventh, targeting a district held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver. [1] [10]
For now, the Supreme Court’s stays leave the 2022 map available for Missouri’s November congressional election, subject to any further order. The constitutional question raised by using one map for a primary and another for the general election remains unresolved. [2]