Missouri’s congressional map fight is hurtling toward another potential Supreme Court showdown, with courts at odds over which districts should govern the November election after more than 1.2 million Missourians voted in the August primary under a different map.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Monday that Missouri must use its 2025 congressional map in November, finding that switching to the state’s 2022 districts after the primary would violate the U.S. Constitution. But the appeals court paused its order until Sept. 28, 2026, opening a narrow window for another visit to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Abhishek Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel and former deputy associate attorney general at the Justice Department, told Digital the Supreme Court’s previous intervention does not necessarily signal how the justices will handle the latest ruling.

«It’s unpredictable how they’ll rule, mostly because we didn’t get their reasoning in the last order,» Kambli said. «So, we don’t know the precise reason why they decided to stay at that time.»

ELECTION CHAOS IN THIS RED STATE JUST GOT EVEN STRANGER FOR REPUBLICANS AFTER SUPREME COURT RULING

The Supreme Court previously stayed a federal district court’s temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map. The Eighth Circuit has now directed the lower court to enter a permanent injunction requiring the newer districts, putting the dispute in a different procedural posture.

«So unless the Supreme Court steps in again, the state will be required to use the seven-one map for this election,» Kambli said.

Missouri held its Aug. 4, 2026, primary under the 2025 map. Roughly a month later, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that voters could challenge the map through a referendum, leaving the 2022 districts in place for the November election.

Kambli said switching congressional maps between the primary and general election raises serious constitutional concerns.

«You would have had a large number of Missourians who would have been disenfranchised because they voted for one set of candidates in the primary and will be voting for another set in the general,» Kambli said.

MISSOURI AG FILES PETITION ASKING SUPREME COURT TO REVIVE TRUMP-BACKED REDISTRICTING MAP

«And what’s even more concerning is sometimes those candidates are unopposed so that they miss their only chance to vote as a result of what the Missouri Supreme Court did here,» Kambli continued. «So that’s what’s really at issue — is whether everyone gets an equal voice in a situation where the primary election is integral to the electoral system of the state.»

But Yale law professor Akhil Amar and University of California, Davis, law professor Vikram Amar have argued the opposite. After the Supreme Court’s earlier stay, Vikram wrote on SCOTUSblog that using the 2025 map in November would not protect anyone’s right to vote if those lines were never legally in effect. Akhil agreed with his analysis.

«HB1’s district lines lack the force of law, full stop,» Vikram wrote. «These lines cannot be used wrongly in November just because they were previously used wrongly in the primary. Two wrongs do not make (or vindicate) a right (to vote).»

Meanwhile, Kambli placed much of the blame for the eleventh-hour legal scramble over which map to use on the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing the turmoil was «entirely preventable.»

VIRGINIA GOP, DEMS BATTLE IT OUT OVER REDISTRICTING BEFORE STATE SUPREME COURT

Kambli argued that the Missouri Supreme Court could have resolved the map dispute earlier, noting that the issue remained unsettled even after the candidate filing deadline passed.

Alicia Bannon, senior director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed instead to delays by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins as a key reason the dispute dragged on.

Opponents of the 2025 map submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025, but Hoskins did not formally reject the referendum petition until Aug. 4, the day of the primary.

«Time passed. And passed further,» Bannon wrote for State Court Report. «As early as December 2025, Hoskins asserted in separate federal litigation that a referendum on redistricting was not authorized by the state constitution. But he held off on issuing a certificate on that basis — which would have triggered judicial review — instead going through a lengthy process of verifying petition signatures.»

Bannon wrote that the Missouri Supreme Court’s criticism of Hoskins’ delays stood out, particularly the court’s rejection of his argument that it had waited too long to intervene.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the referendum could proceed and faulted Hoskins for the delay, saying he had «created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains.»

Kambli argued the Purcell principle, under which federal courts generally avoid changing election rules close to Election Day because of the potential for disruption, weighs in favor of keeping the 2025 map because Missouri already used it for the primary.

«The Eighth Circuit said that the Purcell principles support the injunction, not go against it,» Kambli said.

Bannon also warned that courts being too cautious can create its own problems.

«It’s an approach that’s understandable in some circumstances but can also incentivize shenanigans to evade judicial review while harming voters’ rights,» Bannon wrote.

Bannon suggested earlier court action in Missouri could have helped avoid the last-minute dispute, including by moving the primary or setting a firm deadline for the referendum petition.

But regardless of whether the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, the referendum will still be on the ballot.

«If the Supreme Court does not stay the Eighth Circuit injunction, there’s no doubt that the 7-1 map is what will be in effect for this election. There’s still going to be a referendum on the ballot deciding that issue for future elections, but for this one, that’s how it’ll be decided,» Kambli said.

federal courts, midterm elections, elections disputes, elections state and local, voting, missouri, congress, judiciary

24 Sep, 2026 11:59 a. m. EST

International,Relations,Diplomacy / Foreign Policy,North America

FIRST ON FOX: A University of Maryland research lab that received nearly $700,000 in additional federal funding from the Trump administration this year is facing a civil rights complaint alleging that it uses race and ethnicity to determine access to some research-related opportunities.

The Equal Protection Project (EPP) filed the complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights against UMD’s Lavender Lab, a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded lab that studies suicide, substance use and other health outcomes among LGBTQ+ people and Black, Indigenous and People of Color.

EPP is asking HHS to investigate whether the lab’s LGBTQ+ Teens of Color Advisory Board and its research assistant selection practices give priority to non-White applicants.

«Some people may ask what is wrong with prioritizing non-whites in a program which is designed to study non-whites,» EPP founder William Jacobson told Digital. «When you receive federal funding, you cannot discriminate in the administration of your programs.»

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAUNCHES TITLE VI INVESTIGATION INTO DEI PROGRAMS AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

«You do not need to have an advisory board, you do not need to hire research assistants based on race to fulfill the purposes of this grant,» Jacobson continued.

The complaint comes as the Lavender Lab continues receiving millions of dollars through the NIH for research examining alcohol and drug use among «sexual minority adolescents of color.»

One of the lab’s principal projects, titled «Long-Term and Daily Associations Among Intersectional Minority Stress, Structural Oppression, and Alcohol Use and Misuse Among Sexual Minority Adolescents of Color,» began in May 2022 and is scheduled to run through April 2027. The complaint cites approximately $3.6 million in total federal obligations and roughly $2.2 million in outlays at the time of its filing.

NIH records cited in the complaint show the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism provided another $695,192 for the project for fiscal year 2026.

The complaint points first to the lab’s LGBTQ+ Teens of Color Advisory Board, which said it was «specifically looking for teens in the US who identify as both LGBTQ+ and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) to join our board» in an Instagram post.

A NEW YORK UNIVERSITY FACES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION OVER ‘BLACK MALE INITIATIVE’

According to the complaint, board members are paid to help review research, provide feedback and participate in professional-development activities, with some also receiving leadership opportunities.

EPP also targeted the Lavender Lab’s research-assistant program, which offers positions to undergraduate and master’s-level students.

Although the positions are generally unpaid, the complaint stated that undergraduate research assistants may receive academic course credit, and some students may be able to participate through federal work-study. Research assistants generally commit to at least two semesters and a minimum of eight hours per week.

The lab stated it «especially encourage[s] and invite[s] candidates from traditionally marginalized backgrounds» to apply and that applicants with experience conducting research involving «LGBTQ and BIPOC communities» through «cultural humility, intersectionality, and social justice approaches» will receive the «strongest consideration.»

«Discrimination based on race or ethnicity at institutions receiving federal funding is unlawful regardless of which group is targeted or benefits,» Jacobson said. «Treating individuals as avatars of their demographic identity rather than as individuals with unique merits and circumstances undermines fairness, merit, social cohesion, and the rule of law.»

TRUMP ADMIN’S PUSH TO SCRAP DEI IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES LANDMARK STEP WITH NEW HIRING RULE

EPP alleges that the language indicates race or ethnicity may play a role in the selection process. The complaint asks HHS to investigate whether the practices violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs, as well as the Affordable Care Act.

«Because the Lavender Lab is operating under an HHS health care related grant, the non-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act must be adhered to, and HHS has authority to enforce those provisions,» Jacobson said.

EPP’s complaint also questions federal funding for research focused on intersectionality, which the Lavender Lab says guides its work. The lab studies how sexual-minority status, race, ethnicity and what it calls «structural oppression» affect health outcomes.

«The conduct at the Lavender Lab calls into question whether HHS should be funding intersectionality-focused research at all,» Jacobson said. «Intersectionality is a race- and ethnicity-focused group-identity approach. It is no surprise that where the focus is racial identity that programming could cross the line into civil rights violations.»

Jacobson said EPP has found federal dollars going to programs that use intersectionality and is calling for tighter rules on that funding.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

«We have identified hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding for programs that incorporate intersectionality,» Jacobson said. «Given the civil rights danger from an ‘intersectional’ approach, we call on the administration to issue a new executive order and agency guidance closing the ‘intersectionality loophole’ by including intersectionality in the ban on unlawful discriminatory DEI practices in federal grantmaking.»

Digital reached out to the University of Maryland, HHS and the White House for comment. 

health, medical research, controversies education, campus controversy, diversity, woke