“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Black and Latino voters challenged a congressional map that diluted their vote.
What has happened in this case?
Black and Latino voters filed a state court suit, contending that a congressional map covering Staten Island and other areas was drawn improperly to dilute the voting strength of Black and Latino voters A New York state court ordered that the map be redrawn to remedy the vote dilution.
A state trial court judge agreed, prohibited the use of the existing map in the upcoming 2026 election, and ordered the state’s redistricting commission to draw a new map. After state appellate courts refused to delay the order, Republicans went to the US Supreme Court to seek a delay. In an unsigned one paragraph order, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority granted that request in Malliotakis v Williams , thereby allowing the current map to be used for the 2026 election. Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion offering a rationale, while Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented.
What was Justice Alito’s rationale for the decision?
According to Justice Alito, who was the only justice in the majority who wrote any explanation for the ruling, the state court order “blatantly discriminates on the basis of race” by mandating the redrawing of the district map to include more minorities. He claimed that the Court had the authority to act against the order, even though it was from a state court
What did Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson say in dissent?
Justice Sotomayor strongly dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She wrote that contrary to consistent past precedent, the majority’s order was taking the “unprecedented step” of staying a state trial court decision in a redistricting dispute on matters of state law “without giving the State’s highest court a chance to act.” The Court’s order “violates basic principles of jurisdiction, federalism and equity” and, she sarcastically noted in light of its contradiction with past precedent, is an example of the old saying “Rules for me, but not for thee.” The Court’s action, Sotomayor concluded, “invites parties” dissatisfied with a lower state court result concerning elections to “file emergency applications” with the Supreme Court “without even bothering” to ask the state’s highest court first.
.
Why is the result harmful?.
The ruling made possible by the three Trump justices will obviously harm voters in the Staten Island area of New York. As Justice Sotomayor cautioned, it will also likely encourage other efforts, particularly by Republicans, to interfere with progressive redistricting. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.