The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting, blocking a state trial-court decision that would likely have turned a Republican-held congressional district into a Democratic one. The dispute centers on New York’s 11th Congressional District, which covers Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn and is represented by Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis.
On Jan. 21, a New York state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the voting power of Black and Latino residents in violation of the state constitution. Malliotakis and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to stay the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional candidate filing period was set to begin Feb. 24.
The Trump administration backed the Republican applicants, as it has in other mid-decade redistricting fights this year. Voters and the state of New York argued to the Supreme Court that it was premature for the high court to step in because New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment. They warned that intervening now would encourage litigants to bypass state appellate processes and come straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The unsigned majority order, explained in 101 words, grants a stay while the case proceeds through New York’s appeals courts. If a losing party petitions the U.S. Supreme Court for further review and the court agrees to hear the case, the stay will extend until the court issues a final opinion. The order did not set out the court’s detailed reasoning.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Writing for the three, Sotomayor warned that allowing review of nonfinal state trial-court decisions makes “every decision from any court… fair game” and said the court’s action thrusts it into the middle of election-law disputes nationwide as states redraw maps ahead of 2026. The dissent summarized the majority’s approach as “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
Monday’s intervention departs from the court’s earlier hands-off responses in similar midterm redistricting disputes this term. In prior cases from Texas and California, the court declined to intervene and allowed newly drawn maps to take effect. The court recently allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-leaning map while permitting a GOP-favored Texas map to move forward; those opposing shifts have said the two efforts may offset one another.
The high court has also yet to resolve a major voting-rights redistricting case from Louisiana, which has stretched across two terms. The court ordered a second round of arguments after adding a new question about whether a state’s intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and related congressional enforcement powers. After that addition, Louisiana reversed course and opposed the map it had drawn and defended. Observers noted that the tone of October arguments suggested the court’s conservative supermajority may further limit application of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.