8th Circuit's Defiance of Supreme Court in Missouri Redistricting Case Shows Partisan Judicial Overreach
Source: Billy Corriher. "Republican judges defy Supreme Court to boost GOP in midterms.." September 23, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that Republican-appointed judges on a federal appeals court are repeatedly and deliberately defying the Supreme Court to help Missouri Republicans keep gerrymandered voting districts for the 2026 elections. Even though the Supreme Court already told these judges twice that this is a state law matter outside their jurisdiction, they keep finding new justifications to rule in the GOP's favor, using a legal theory the author says makes no sense and contradicts established precedent.
Conclusion
Republican-appointed judges on the 8th Circuit are willfully defying the U.S. Supreme Court and misapplying constitutional law in order to help Republicans preserve favorable gerrymandered congressional districts in Missouri ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Premises
- The 8th Circuit has twice been overruled by the Supreme Court for intervening in this lawsuit, yet a panel including Trump appointees ordered Missouri to use the gerrymandered districts a third time
- The dispute is fundamentally a matter of state law (interpretation of the Missouri Constitution and state Supreme Court authority), over which federal courts have no jurisdiction absent a federal law issue
- The panel invented a novel constitutional right—that voters must be able to vote for the same district's primary candidates in the general election—based on a strained reading of the elections clause, which actually only allows states to regulate 'time, place, and manner' of elections
- This interpretation conflicts with well-established practice, since general elections routinely feature candidates who weren't on primary ballots for many other legitimate reasons
- The panel's ruling directly conflicts with a binding Supreme Court order and represents a direct defiance of the Court's authority
- The panel shifted blame to the Missouri Supreme Court and secretary of state's delays rather than acknowledging its own overreach, while ignoring that the Missouri Supreme Court has final say on state law matters
- The Supreme Court has consistently rejected similar Republican arguments about the elections clause in analogous gerrymandering cases from other states (e.g., North Carolina in 2022)
- A comparable case in Ohio, where a Trump-appointed judge's order to use unconstitutional gerrymandered districts was never overturned, shows federal judicial interference can succeed in helping Republicans evade fair district rulings
Assumptions
- Federal circuit court judges' rulings in this case are motivated by partisan political goals rather than good-faith legal interpretation
- The Supreme Court's prior rulings and precedents in this area are correctly decided and should be dispositive
- State supreme courts have final authority over interpretation of state constitutional and election law absent a specific federal law violation
- The elections clause was intended to be interpreted narrowly, limited to time/place/manner regulations, not as a vehicle for federal courts to override state court rulings on gerrymandering
- Judicial appointees' partisan backgrounds are a reliable indiccharacter of their rulings' motivations
- The pattern of repeated defiance despite being overruled indicates intentional rather than merely erroneous judicial reasoning