Democrats ask Supreme Court not to disrupt New York redistricting dispute

SCOTUSblog

by Amy Howe

February 20, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

Democrats have filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent a New York trial judge's ruling from disrupting the state's redistricting process ahead of the 2026 elections. The ruling by Justice Jeffrey Pearlman mandates that New York cannot use its current congressional map, which allegedly dilutes the voting power of Black and Latino communities in the 11th Congressional District, represented by Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis. Pearlman's decision requires the state to redraw the district boundaries by February 6, 2026, to ensure equal representation for minority voters. The challengers argue that Pearlman's ruling violates Supreme Court precedent by effectively mandating a racial gerrymander. They claim this would force New York to add Black and Latino voters to the district until they constitute a majority in general elections, which they describe as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Meanwhile, Malliotakis and other defenders of the existing map have asked state appellate courts to stay Pearlman's order but were denied by both the intermediate appellate court and the New York Court of Appeals. The voters challenging the current map argue that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in ongoing state-court proceedings unless a final judgment from a state's highest court is at issue. They contend that Pearlman's ruling is not yet final, as it remains subject to appeal. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the challengers, calling the case an "open and unabashed racial gerrymander." However, election officials led by Gov. Kathy Hochul argue that granting a stay would improperly infringe on state sovereignty over its electoral processes. The legal battle highlights a significant tension between federal and state authority in redistricting matters. If the Supreme Court sides with the map's defenders, it could set a precedent allowing greater federal intervention in state election disputes. Conversely, if it declines to intervene, it may reinforce states' prerogative to manage their own electoral processes without federal overreach. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for minority voting rights and the balance of power between state and federal governments in shaping election laws.

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/20/2026