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

Supreme Court stays the Missouri TRO

2 min read
13:20UTC

All nine justices were needed to undo a single district judge's order, two days after one justice alone had been enough to leave a state court's injunction standing.

PoliticsDeveloping
Key takeaway

Nine justices were required to stop one district judge from overriding Missouri's own Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court stayed Judge Stephen R. Clark's restraining order in Onder v. State of Missouri on 10 September, with no dissent noted⁠1. Justice Brett Kavanaugh put this application to the full bench instead of ruling on it himself, the opposite of his handling of the state's own application two days earlier. A stay suspends another court's ruling while an appeal proceeds, so Clark's command to use HB 1 stopped operating that day.

Kavanaugh's signature alone sufficed to let a state court's injunction stand on 8 September. Cancelling a federal judge's interference with that same injunction took all nine justices two days later. Whatever the Court thinks of mid-decade redistricting, it treated a district judge overriding a state Supreme Court on election administration as the question deserving nine votes.

Missouri's 2022 boundaries now govern the 3 November vote, which is the result the state Supreme Court reached on 3 September. On that same ballot, Missouri Proposition A asks voters whether HB 1 should take effect at all; approval would bring the map into force 30 days later, around 3 December, too late to touch a single 2026 race. Maryland's highest court put a comparable redistricting question back before its own voters in early September. Two states have now handed the drawing of congressional lines to a referendum after the courts ran out of room.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

the Supreme Court paused Judge Clark's order, so Missouri no longer has to use the HB 1 map under that federal case. Lawyers call this a stay: it pauses a lower court's order temporarily and decides nothing about whether the map itself is legal. No justice publicly disagreed on the record, but that does not necessarily mean all nine agreed. the Court's emergency orders often do not show individual votes, so the public may never know exactly how each justice came down.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

A stay pending appeal turns on the four-factor test the Court set out in Nken v. Holder: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent a stay, the balance of harms between the parties, and the public interest. A majority satisfied on those factors can issue a stay without ever ruling on the merits of whether HB 1 or the 2022 map is lawful.

That structure is why Thursday's order settles which map Missouri uses for now while leaving the underlying legal question, which map the state constitution actually permits, undecided and still pending below.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    The stay leaves the 2022 map as the operative map for now, without deciding whether HB 1 is constitutionally valid, so the underlying dispute remains live below.

  • Risk

    Because the order carries no recorded vote, any later claim about which justices supported it will be difficult to verify against the public record.

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.