Published September 21, 2026 at 5:00 AM ET · Updated September 22, 2026 at 2:10 PM ET
Appeals court orders Missouri to use congressional map justices twice rejected
5 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by ProPublica. Verification: Confirmed (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A federal appeals court ordered Missouri to use a congressional map that the Supreme Court has twice rejected. The map has been described as favorable to Republicans.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 10 d ago, when ProPublica reported it. Coverage has since grown to 5 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 8 d ago from Fox News.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Wesberry v. Sanders held that congressional districts within a state must be substantially equal in population, one person's vote worth as much as another's. Rucho v. Common Cause held that partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions federal courts may not decide, so the map's Republican tilt alone is no basis for a federal ruling. Its fate turns on concrete defects such as population inequality.
Wesberry v. Sanders 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Justice Hugo L. Black
Article I, § 2's command that Representatives be chosen 'by the People of the several States' requires that, as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election be worth as much as another's — i.e., congressional districts within a state must be substantially equal in population. Georgia's Fifth District, with two to three times the population of some other districts, was unconstitutional. This is the congressional-districting branch of 'one person, one vote.'
Rucho v. Common Cause 588 U.S. 684 (2019)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions: there is no 'limited and precise' judicially manageable standard for deciding how much partisan advantage is too much. Federal courts may not adjudicate them. The Court pointedly left open that state constitutions and statutes may supply standards enforceable in STATE courts, and that Congress retains power to regulate.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
