Supreme Court to Hear Missouri Redistricting Case for Third Time — A Test of Federalism and Voter Representation

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Missouri’s redistricting dispute for an unprecedented third time, scheduling oral arguments for the October 2026 term. The case, Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. Ashcroft, challenges the state’s latest congressional map drawn by a special master after two previous maps were invalidated by federal courts. At its core, the litigation pits claims of racial vote dilution against the state’s argument that the map is a permissible partisan gerrymander — a question the Supreme Court has largely left to the states since its 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause.

Missouri’s redistricting odyssey began after the 2020 census, when the Republican-controlled legislature passed a map that added an additional conservative-leaning district. Civil rights groups immediately sued, alleging that the map diluted the voting strength of Black communities in St. Louis and Kansas City by cracking them across multiple districts. In 2023, a federal district court agreed, ordering the legislature to draw a new map. When the legislature failed to agree on a replacement, the court appointed a special master, who produced a map that created a second majority-Black district.

That map was then challenged by Republican state officials, who argued it constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander favoring Democrats. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state in 2025, striking down the special master’s map and ordering a return to the original 2022 map. But the NAACP appealed to the Supreme Court, which vacated the Eighth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration. Now, after the lower court again upheld the special master’s map, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari for a third time.

Why this matters: The Court’s decision could redefine the boundaries between permissible partisan considerations and unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Missouri’s case tests whether courts can impose remedial maps that explicitly take race into account to remedy past discrimination, and whether such remedies violate the Equal Protection Clause when they produce a net partisan advantage. For free-market advocates, the issue also implicates the principle of subsidiarity: should federal judges be drawing maps at all, or should the people, through their state legislatures, have the final say?

FORTIS analysis: From a liberal-conservative perspective, this case encapsulates the tension between two valid concerns. On one hand, the Constitution grants states primary authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections — a power that respects local knowledge and accountability. On the other hand, when a state legislature uses that power to entrench itself through partisan line-drawing, it undermines electoral competition, which is essential to a free market of ideas and candidates. The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho effectively kicked partisan gerrymandering claims out of federal court, leaving only racial claims viable. But Missouri’s case shows how easily racial and partisan motivations can intertwine.

The special master’s map did not rely on strict racial quotas; it used traditional redistricting criteria like compactness and contiguity. Yet its effect was to create a second district where Black voters could elect their preferred candidate. Republican officials argue that this was a pretext for a Democratic gerrymander. But data from the Missouri Secretary of State’s office shows that the map produces a 6-2 Republican majority in a state that voted for Donald Trump by 15 points in 2024 — hardly a dramatic partisan shift. The real question is whether the Court will accept a map that, while imperfect, is less extreme than the legislature’s original proposal.

Counterpoint: Critics of the special master’s map argue that any use of race in redistricting, even to remedy past discrimination, must be subject to strict scrutiny — and that the map’s architects failed to show a compelling state interest. In a statement to the press, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said the map “deliberately sorted voters by race to achieve a political outcome, which is precisely what the Constitution forbids.” This argument has force. If the Court allows race-conscious remedies without clear evidence of ongoing discrimination, it may invite similar lawsuits across the country, increasing federal judicial intervention in state affairs — a outcome that runs counter to the conservative preference for limited government.