SCOTUS Undermined Public Confidence in the Court by Staying a N.Y. State Trial Court Order to Redraw a Congressional District’s Lines

The U.S. Supreme Court Undermined Public Confidence in the Court by Staying a N.Y. State Trial Court Order to Redraw a Congressional District’s Lines

A Statement by the Rule of Law Task Force of the

New York County Lawyers Association

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court, without explanation, issued a decision on its shadow docket that blocks the courts of New York State from considering remedial steps for discrimination against Black and Latino voters in the mapping of the State’s Congressional districts. In issuing its decision, the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction and violated the principle the Supreme Court itself had adopted governing federal courts’ intervention in election-law disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision, in short, departs from the Rule of Law, improperly interferes with our State’s judicial processes, and leads to suspicion that it may result from partisanship by the Court’s majority or, as a concurring opinion by Justice Alito may signal, hostility toward minority voting rights. Thus, it will further diminish the public’s declining confidence in the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. The Rule of Law Task Force of the New York County Lawyers Association is disappointed and alarmed to see the Supreme Court conduct itself in this way.

Background

Nicole Malliotakis is the Congressional representative for a district that includes New York City’s Borough of Staten Island and part of Brooklyn. In advance of this year’s Congressional elections, a group of voters claimed that the boundaries of Malliotakis’ district had been drawn in a manner that violated the New York State Constitution by discriminating against Black and Latino voters. In January 2026, a New York State trial court held for the voters and ordered the State’s independent redistricting commission to draw new boundaries for the district.

Malliotakis, a Republican, then appealed for a stay of the order to the U.S. Supreme Court before any of the New York appellate courts had decided whether to stay the order. After the appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court was filed, the State’s intermediate appellate court declined to stay the trial court’s order. On March 2, 2026, in a brief order on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket,” the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 6-3 that the State redistricting commission may not act on the trial court’s order until after the “disposition of the ongoing appeal in the New York state courts and the disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari” to the Supreme Court, if one is filed. By that time, it may be too late for the commission to take any action that affects this year’s midterm Congressional elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision’s Key Flaws

1.  Lack of Jurisdiction
   The U.S. Supreme Court, like all federal courts, has only limited jurisdiction. As to appeals from decisions by state courts, the federal jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. §1257(a), makes clear that the Supreme Court may review only “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State” that implicate federal law. This deference serves the purpose of “limit[ing] review of state court determinations of federal constitutional issues to leave at a minimum federal intrusion in state affairs.” North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U.S. 156, 159 (1973). This is consistent with our basic federalist tradition that state courts may resolve both state- and federal-law questions.
   New York State’s highest court has not ruled on the merits of Malliotakis’ appeal, which is why the Supreme Court’s order refers to the “on-going appeal in the New York state courts.” The intermediate appellate court’s order does not satisfy the “final judgment or decree” requirement of §1257(a), because that order is reviewable by the highest New York state court and thus, not final. See NYC PLR §5602. Therefore, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to decide Malliotakis’ case.

2. Lack of Fidelity to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Election-Law Principles
   In Malliotakis’ case, however, the U.S. Supreme Court did not even allow the New York State courts to complete their consideration of a possible new Congressional districting plan conforming to New York State law. Instead, the Supreme Court blocked even the preparation of the New York State plan, which unlike the plans previously approved by the Supreme Court, probably would have favored the Democrats.
   The U.S. Supreme Court’s failure to follow its own stated “Purcell principle” fuels the suspicion that the decision in Malliotakis may have been influenced by partisanship, hostility to minority voting rights, or a combination of the two on the part of some of the Justices. But whatever the majority’s unstated motivations, it is, at best, irresponsible for the highest court in the land to act in a hasty, unexplained, and seemingly unprincipled manner on an issue as significant to democracy as our citizens’ voting rights. As Justice Sotomayor put it in her dissent in Malliotakis on behalf of three justices: “The Court’s 101-word unexplained order can be summarized in just 7: ‘Rules for thee, but not for me.’” 607 U.S. ___, ___ (2026).

Conclusion

We look to our U.S. Supreme Court to be the ultimate safeguard of the Rule of Law and the Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms the Rule of Law protects. When the Supreme Court itself acts without jurisdiction, and in a manner that conflicts with its own precedents – in a way that appears to serve a partisan political agenda – the Court’s conduct weakens the public’s confidence in the Court’s legitimacy, and ultimately confidence in and respect for the Rule of Law. This is particularly troubling because the Malliotakis decision involves Americans’ voting rights, and as President Ronald Reagan declared when supporting an extension of the Voting Rights Act, “The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties.”

# # #

This statement has been issued by the Rule of Law Task Force and approved by NYCLA’s President. It has not been reviewed by NYCLA’s full Board of Directors and does not necessarily represent its views.