In win for GOP, Supreme Court blocks New York election map redraw

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court blocked the redraw of a Republican congressional district in New York on Friday evening, keeping in place a map that was found to dilute the power Black and Latino voters.

Without explaining their decision, the justices overruled the state trial judge that called for a redraw of Representative Nicole Malliotakis’ Staten Island district. Justice Jeffrey Pearlman of the New York Supreme Court barred New York from using the map in upcoming elections, ordering the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to propose a new map by Feb. 6.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, summarizing the ruling as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” Leading the dissent, Sotomayor chastised her colleagues for ignoring limits on federal courts’ authority, worrying that every decision from any court is now fair game.

“By granting these applications, the court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many states redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election,” Sotomayor, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote.

Sotomayor worried that the order would invite parties to ignore state court appeals in favor of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket.

“There is much reason to question whether the majority will exercise its new-found authority wisely, but there is no reason to question this: If you build it, they will come,” Sotomayor wrote.

A group of voters sued New York late last year, claiming that the state’s 11th congressional district diluted Black and Latino votes. Unlike prior vote dilute lawsuits, the voters argued that the map violated the state constitution.

Pearlman held a four-day trial to consider the case, noting that New York courts did not have an established legal standard to evaluate vote dilution claims under the state constitution. In late January, Pearlman ruled that based on totality of circumstances — the new legal standard — Malliotakis’ district denied Black and Latino voters an equal opportunity under Article III of the state constitution.

Malliotakis and other individual voters that joined her defense of the existing map appealed the decision to two New York appellate courts. Before either court could respond, she filed an emergency application at the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that New York’s redistricting commission was ordered to create a racially gerrymandered map.

Malliotakis called for “an end to this unconstitutional mischief,” noting that nominating petitions started circulating on Feb. 24.

Sotomayor admonished her colleagues for stepping in before the state high court had a chance to weigh in. Under basic federalism principles, Sotomayor said state courts must have authority to adjudicate cases free from federal interference.

“Until defendants try to obtain relief from New York’s highest court, this court cannot and should not act,” Sotomayor wrote. “That defendants have not taken that modest step should have resulted in the denial of the stay they seek.”

Sotomayor dismissed Malliotakis’ claims about the need for the Supreme Court to intervene now or risk losing the opportunity to weigh in at all.

“The general election is eight months away and the primary is about four months away,” Sotomayor wrote. “That is more than enough time for defendants to, at the very least, seek a stay from the Court of Appeals.”

In two previous emergency orders, the justices have allowed California and Texas redistricting maps to be used in the upcoming midterm elections based on the Purcell principle — preventing federal courts from intervening in litigation “on the eve of an election."

Sotomayor said her colleagues’ decision to intervene in New York’s redraw was irreconcilable with those rulings.

Quoting an opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sotomayor wrote, “It is one thing for a state on its own to toy with its election laws close to a state’s elections. But it is quite another thing for a federal court to swoop in and re-do a state’s election laws in the period close to an election.”

Coming just days before the deadline for the commission to release its new district lines, Sotomayor questioned how her colleagues determined that the new district could be unlawful.

“The majority, however, seems to have no doubts that whatever district may or may not be drawn necessarily will violate the Federal Constitution, regardless of how it might be configured, regardless of how the New York Independent Redistricting Commission might go about drawing it, and regardless of what state law might actually require,” Sotomayor wrote.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social