Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
US Midterms 2026
27OCT

Federal judge orders HB 1 back into use

2 min read
13:20UTC

Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark ordered Missouri to run the 3 November election on its suspended congressional map, hours after the US Supreme Court had declined to lift that suspension.

PoliticsDeveloping
Key takeaway

Clark ordered Missouri onto the suspended map, then refused to shield its secretary of state from the state court.

Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark of the Eastern District of Missouri granted four Republican plaintiffs a temporary restraining order on 8 September, directing the state to run the 3 November election on HB 1⁠1. Robert Onder and three other Republican plaintiffs brought the suit. A temporary restraining order is the fastest instrument a federal judge has, issued to hold a position for days rather than to resolve a case, and Clark issued his within hours of the US Supreme Court declining to disturb the state court's contrary ruling.

Missouri therefore had two live commands pointing in opposite directions on the same afternoon. The state court had struck HB 1 down and sent it to voters; Clark ordered it used. The Eighth Circuit declined to stay his order on 9 September, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over a restraining order of that kind rather than deciding whether Clark was right.

Secretary of State Denny Hoskins then asked Clark to go further and enjoin the Missouri Supreme Court itself, invoking the All Writs Act, a statute that lets federal judges issue orders protecting their own authority. Clark refused on comity grounds, the principle that one court does not casually command another. He had given Hoskins the map he wanted and declined to give him cover against the judges who had taken it away, which left the secretary of state holding a federal order and no protection from the state bench that had suspended the law.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

A federal judge and Missouri's own Supreme Court gave Missouri two opposite instructions on the same map in the same week. Judge Clark, hearing a case from Republican voters, ordered the state to use HB 1, the newer map state lawmakers had passed. Missouri's Supreme Court had already paused HB 1 and told the state to use the older 2022 map instead. When Hoskins tried to get Clark to also block the state Supreme Court from enforcing its own order, Clark said no. Federal judges generally cannot tell a state's own courts what to do, even when a related federal case is running at the same time.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Missouri's redistricting fight ran on two separate tracks at once: a state case testing whether HB 1 was validly enacted, and a federal case testing whether voters' equal protection rights required a particular map be used. Nothing forced those two cases into a single forum, so a federal judge and a state Supreme Court reached opposite conclusions about which map governs, in the same week.

That split-track structure exists because state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over different legal theories arising from the same facts. Hoskins could win on one track and lose on the other, which is exactly what happened.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    With Clark refusing to reach the state court, Missouri's map dispute stayed split across two separate judicial systems with no single forum resolving both at once.

  • Meaning

    Clark's TRO gave HB 1 a second, independent federal basis beyond the legislature's own enactment, which is part of why the Supreme Court's later stay of that TRO mattered on its own terms.

First Reported In

Update #17 · Missouri's election chief held in contempt

CourtListener· 15 Sept 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ appealed to the 9th Circuit after Judge David O. Carter did not rule by a noon deadline on 22 October that DOJ itself had set, seeking to have California set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 listed voters. Its case is that ineligible votes cancel lawful ones; the panel dismissed the appeal 2-1 on 26 October.
Lower Costs Now
Lower Costs Now
Lower Costs Now reported $7.37m in Kansas on 24 and 25 October, part of $65.65m in Senate races since its first independent expenditure on 1 October, including $17.21m for Josh Turek in Iowa. Its FEC filings show $50.18m raised by 14 October.
MAGA Inc
MAGA Inc
MAGA Inc, the super PAC aligned with Donald Trump, filed $7.20m against James Talarico on 22 October, taking its Texas spending to $37.65m. Of that, $30.12m is against Talarico and $7.53m is for Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee.
Senate Majority PAC (SMP)
Senate Majority PAC (SMP)
SMP's pre-general report shows it spent $108.70m from 1 to 14 October, including $65.0m to WinSenate and $10.0m to Texas Forever, and ended with $32.72m. Texas Forever has reported $19.40m against Ken Paxton since 1 October.
Senate Leadership Fund (SLF)
Senate Leadership Fund (SLF)
SLF's pre-general report shows $88.42m in cash on 14 October and $18.98m raised in the fortnight, none of it from Elon Musk. It has since reported $12.07m against Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and its $2.7m to Plains PAC preceded that committee's first Kansas buy on 25 October.
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
The NRSC's pre-general report shows nothing spent with Ashley Hinson in Iowa, or with its nominees in six other states, from 1 to 14 October, after $5.54m with Hinson in September. It took no new loan and ended the fortnight with $25.20m in cash and $20m of debt.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.