Will SCOTUS permit Missouri's HB 1 House map? — Before Nov 3, 2026

- [2026-09-03] The Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Von Glahn v. Hoskins (SC101805) that the referendum petition against HB 1 was legal, sufficient, and timely, meaning "the plain language of article III, section 49 of the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum as to 'any act of the general assembly' and no exception applies... This Court reverses the circuit court's judgment," effectively keeping the 2022 map in place unless voters approve HB 1 on the November ballot. (https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=239229) - [2026-09-08] Justice Kavanaugh, without referring to the full Court, denied Hoskins's stay request in his role as circuit justice for the Eighth Circuit , and hours later a federal district judge (Stephen Clark) issued a TRO requiring use of the HB 1 map instead, creating dueling state/federal orders. (https://www.lawdork.com/p/dueling-rulings-cause-chaos-over) - [2026-09-10] The full U.S. Supreme Court, in an unsigned order with no noted dissents, said that Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins must use a 2022 congressional map in the November elections, not a new congressional map that would favor Republicans , staying Judge Clark's TRO. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-missouri-new-map-2026-midterm-elections/) - [2026-09-10] The Missouri Supreme Court found Hoskins in contempt for directing officials to use HB 1 after the SCOTUS stay, but ruled "the secretary has since corrected his contemptuous conduct by informing this court of his notifications to the local election authorities... The secretary therefore has purged himself of said contempt." (https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2026-09-10/missouri-supreme-court-contempt-hearing-hoskins-map) - [2026-09-21] The Eighth Circuit panel (Loken, Stras, Smith) reversed course, ruling that "Missouri's current plan to use the 2022 map in the November 2026 general election violates the Constitution. Only use of the 2025 map complies with the Constitution and federal law. We affirm the district court and remand for entry of a permanent injunction." (https://www.newsweek.com/appeals-panel-orders-use-of-trump-backed-missouri-map-what-we-know-12470550) - [2026-09-21] The panel expressly stayed its own permanent injunction, ordering that it "issued a permanent injunction that won't go into effect until Sept. 28, allowing time for SCOTUS review... 'If the Supreme Court has not stayed or otherwise altered the permanent injunction by that time, Secretary Hoskins and all others bound by this judgment must fully implement the 2025 map.'" (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-again-ordered-to-use-gerrymandered-map-supreme-court-likely-to-decide/) - [2026-09-21] Practically, as of the ruling "nothing changes just yet. The 2022 map remains in place while the 8th Circuit's permanent injunction is stayed through 5 p.m. Central on September 28, giving PNP a week to ask the Supreme Court to intervene." (https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2026/09/21/8th-circuit-mo-n2207047) - [2026-09-21/22] People Not Politicians' Richard von Glahn stated the group "will seek emergency Supreme Court review of the decision" and separately filed an emergency motion in the Eighth Circuit itself. (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-again-ordered-to-use-gerrymandered-map-supreme-court-likely-to-decide/) - [2026-09-22] ABC17/KQ2 report that PNP filed "an emergency appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals late Monday night... arguing that the ruling conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's order," listing three independent grounds to keep the 2022 map , with the first ground being that the Eighth Circuit ruling violates the Supreme Court's earlier stay. (https://abc17news.com/news/top-stories/2026/09/22/people-not-politicians-files-emergency-appeal-after-2022-congressional-map-ruled-unconstitutional/) - [2026-09-22] Analysts note the next SCOTUS move depends on "von Glahn's promised new emergency Supreme Court filing, and then how Kavanaugh and the court choose to handle it." (https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-missouri-map-republicans-8th-circuit) - [2026-09-22] Absentee voting for non-UOCAVA voters began statewide under the 2022 map, as the Eighth Circuit had noted this date does not moot the case since general absentee voting had not yet started when it ruled. (https://www.newsweek.com/appeals-panel-orders-use-of-trump-backed-missouri-map-what-we-know-12470550) - [2026-09-28 5pm CT] This is the scheduled deadline: absent Supreme Court action, the Eighth Circuit's permanent injunction mandating the HB 1/2025 map takes effect automatically. (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-again-ordered-to-use-gerrymandered-map-supreme-court-likely-to-decide/) BOTTOM LINE: As of Sept 23, 2026, the Supreme Court has twice already blocked the HB 1 map (Sept 8 Kavanaugh denial, Sept 10 full-Court stay), leaving the 2022 map operative, but the Eighth Circuit's Sept 21 ruling ordering HB 1's use is set to take automatic effect Sept 28 unless SCOTUS again intervenes, meaning the Court faces an imminent, likely binary decision point within days that could resolve this market either way well before Nov 3. NOT FOUND: No confirmation yet (as of Sept 23) that the full Supreme Court has acted on the newest (post-Sept 21) emergency application or extended any administrative stay; the case's SCOTUS docket number for this third round was not located.

- [2026-09-08] Justice Kavanaugh, acting as circuit justice, denied Missouri Secretary of State Hoskins' emergency application to stay the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling against the HB 1 map — the first SCOTUS-level rebuff of the map. September 8: Justice Kavanaugh denied Hoskins's emergency application to stay the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Source: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/federal-courts/breaking-down-the-missouri-congressional-map-legal-battles-after-supreme-court-stay/ - [2026-09-10] SCOTUS (Kavanaugh) granted People Not Politicians' application and stayed a federal district judge's TRO that would have forced use of HB 1, pending resolution by the 8th Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, effectively blocking the GOP gerrymander for the 2026 midterms — the second SCOTUS-level action against HB 1, unsigned with no noted dissents. Source: https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/missouri-congressional-redistricting-referendum-challenge-onder/ - [2026-09-21/22] The 8th Circuit (a lower appellate court, not SCOTUS) ruled the opposite way, ordering use of the 2025/HB1 map on Elections Clause/Supremacy Clause grounds, but stayed its own injunction until Sept. 28, 2026 "If the Supreme Court has not stayed or otherwise altered the permanent injunction by that time, Secretary Hoskins and all others bound by this judgment must fully implement the new map — meaning the question returns to SCOTUS for a third emergency-docket round before Nov. 3. Source: https://molawyersmedia.com/2026/09/22/missouri-2025-congressional-map-8th-circuit/ - [2026 base rate] In the current term, SCOTUS's shadow-docket redistricting interventions have overwhelmingly sided with Republican-drawn maps: it granted a stay preserving Alabama's 2023 map (Allen v. Milligan, June 2026) and issued the judgment immediately in Louisiana v. Callais to let Louisiana redraw around a Section 2 district. In 2026, Purcell was deployed to permit a state's eleventh-hour switch to a map a court had found intentionally discriminatory... the Court granted a stay in the Alabama redistricting case that cleared the way for Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map. Source: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/231-the-death-of-purcells-principle - [2026 pattern] Commentators note this term's outside-view pattern is asymmetric/partisan-favoring rather than a neutral timing rule: in both directions, and on opposite facts, the (Republican-controlled) state won—with Purcell applied in some contexts, but not others. That general "GOP map usually prevails" pattern is the closest reference class, yet it cuts against a simple base rate because Missouri is the outlier case where SCOTUS has twice already ruled against the GOP-favored map. - [historical] The Purcell principle itself, on which these interventions typically rest, is frequently invoked by the Supreme Court and lower courts to allow elections to proceed under a state's preferred voting requirements, maps, and other rules, but parameters for what constitutes an applicable change in election rules or when is too close to an election have never been laid out, an ambiguity that allows the Supreme Court to invoke it selectively. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purcell_principle - [2022 analog] In the 2022 cycle, SCOTUS's Merrill v. Milligan stay preserved Alabama's existing map against a lower-court finding of illegality roughly nine months before the election, showing SCOTUS has repeatedly intervened via the emergency docket to freeze the status quo rather than let new maps or new injunctions take effect — a pattern cutting in favor of the status quo (currently the 2022 map in Missouri, not HB1). Source: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/231-the-death-of-purcells-principle - [process speed] SCOTUS has already acted with extraordinary speed twice in this exact case (within 24-48 hours each time via the emergency/shadow docket), indicating that if the 8th Circuit's Sept. 28 deadline holds, a third SCOTUS ruling is highly likely to occur well before Nov. 3, 2026, consistent with the emergency-docket norm of resolving election-map disputes in days, not months. On the merits docket, cases follow a predictable rhythm... The whole process, from certiorari grant to decision, usually takes six to nine months. On the shadow docket, that timeline collapses. Source: https://legalclarity.org/what-is-the-supreme-court-shadow-docket-and-how-it-works/ - [outside view on outcome] No systematic "win rate" tracker exists for this specific configuration (SCOTUS overturning its own two prior orders in the same case), but in the broader 2025-2026 redistricting emergency-docket cycle, SCOTUS has sided with Republican-favored maps in Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas (Abbott v. LULAC) while so far declining Missouri Republicans' map twice — making Missouri statistically the exception rather than the rule. - [betting/market context] No polling, prediction-market history, or expert survey specific to "will SCOTUS permit HB1" beyond this Kalshi market was found; legal journalists (SCOTUSblog, Democracy Docket, Law Dork) describe the outcome as genuinely uncertain given the direct circuit conflict now forcing a third SCOTUS ruling. Source: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-again-ordered-to-use-gerrymandered-map-supreme-court-likely-to-decide/ BOTTOM LINE: The outside view is mixed: this term's overall shadow-docket base rate favors GOP-drawn maps surviving (Alabama, Louisiana, Texas), but in this specific case SCOTUS has already ruled against HB1 twice within the past three weeks, making Missouri the reference class's outlier; a third, decisive SCOTUS ruling is highly likely before Nov. 3 given the 8th Circuit's Sept. 28 deadline, but its direction is not clearly predicted by the broader pattern alone. NOT FOUND: No dedicated statistical tracker or academic study giving a numeric "grant rate" for SCOTUS emergency stays in redistricting cases; no polling or prediction-market history specific to this Missouri dispute prior to the current Kalshi market; no confirmed SCOTUS docket number or ruling for the anticipated third emergency application as of Sept. 23, 2026.

- [2026-09-10] The Sept 10 SCOTUS stay was not a merits ruling but an explicitly conditional placeholder: Kavanaugh's order paused Judge Clark's TRO only pending resolution by the 8th Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court , meaning the stay's own terms contemplated exactly the scenario that has now arrived — an 8th Circuit ruling on the merits — as the trigger for reconsideration. (https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/missouri-congressional-redistricting-referendum-challenge-onder/) - [2026-09-21] Unlike the Missouri Supreme Court's Sept 3 ruling, which rested on state constitutional grounds that von Glahn argued were an "adequate and independent state-law" bar insulating it from SCOTUS review, the 8th Circuit panel decided the case on a freestanding federal theory: "Elections Clause theory runs headlong into more than a century of precedent" was von Glahn's rebuttal to Hoskins in the earlier round, but the Sept 21 panel instead grounded its ruling in Article I, Section 2's continuity-of-constituency right, giving SCOTUS a clean federal question to review or defer to this time rather than a state-law bar. (https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/missouri-congressional-redistricting-dispute-returns-to-the-supreme-court/) - [2026-09-21] The 8th Circuit panel's central holding was that "Missouri's current plan to use the 2022 map in the November 2026 general election violates the Constitution. Only use of the 2025 map complies with the Constitution and federal law" — a unanimous, reasoned merits opinion (not a one-line emergency order), which gives SCOTUS a fuller record to affirm without having to independently construct constitutional reasoning from scratch. - [2026-09-21] The panel built its ruling on a novel, voter-continuity theory rather than reviving the Elections Clause/independent-state-legislature argument SCOTUS had already implicitly slighted twice: it held that people who voted in the August primary would receive a general-election ballot for a different district -style disruption deprives voters of equal participation, a framing designed to appeal to a Court sympathetic to protecting the integrity of the primary-to-general voting chain rather than to the redistricting-authority question SCOTUS had already twice declined to credit. - [2026-09-21] The panel explicitly inverted the Purcell analysis Von Glahn had relied on twice before: it characterized the 2025/HB1 map, not the 2022 map, as the practical "status quo," reasoning that a federal appeals court on Monday reinstated a Republican-preferred congressional map for Missouri, setting up a likely third Supreme Court fight over the district lines because the state had already run its primary under HB1 — this reframing removes Purcell as an automatic shield for the 2022 map and gives SCOTUS a doctrinally comfortable path to let HB1 stand without appearing to abandon Purcell. - [2026-09-21] The panel bolstered its findings with concrete numbers likely to weigh with the Court: it cited estimates that roughly 1.4 million Missourians live in different districts under the two maps and about 284,000 primary voters would receive a different district's general-election ballot, a scale-of-disruption argument tailored to justify federal intervention this late in the cycle. (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-again-ordered-to-use-gerrymandered-map-supreme-court-likely-to-decide/) - [2026-09-21] The panel also foreclosed alternative federal theories that had drawn skepticism, declining to reach the Elections Clause or Equal Protection claims and resting solely on the Article I voter-continuity theory — narrowing the question before SCOTUS to a single, relatively fresh legal issue rather than re-litigating the same Elections Clause theory the Court had twice passed on. - [2026-09-09] Even in the prior round, von Glahn's own filings recognized that Kavanaugh's denials do not bind future review, conceding Applicants lean heavily on Justice Kavanaugh's denial of the State's prior stay application, even though the Court has consistently recognized that unreasoned denials of stay applications or certiorari petitions should not be interpreted as silent merits judgments — an admission from the challengers themselves that the two prior SCOTUS actions do not foreclose a different outcome now. - [2026-09-22] People Not Politicians' own emergency 8th Circuit filing implicitly signals it sees this round as harder to win than the first two SCOTUS rounds: ABC17 reports the group's appeal argues the panel's ruling "conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's order" as only its first of three grounds, suggesting the group anticipates SCOTUS could otherwise simply let the 8th Circuit's reasoning control absent that specific procedural argument. (https://abc17news.com/news/top-stories/2026/09/22/people-not-politicians-files-emergency-appeal-after-2022-congressional-map-ruled-unconstitutional/) - [2026-09-28 5:00pm CT] Structurally, the default outcome favors HB1: the 8th Circuit's injunction requiring the 2025 map is self-executing and needs no further SCOTUS action to take effect — SCOTUS must affirmatively grant a new stay to stop it, whereas simple inaction, a denial of emergency relief, or a delay past the deadline all result in Yes. (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-again-ordered-to-use-gerrymandered-map-supreme-court-likely-to-decide/) BOTTOM LINE: The strongest YES path is that the 8th Circuit's Sept 21 ruling — a reasoned, unanimous panel decision resting on a novel federal Article I "voter continuity" theory rather than the Elections Clause argument SCOTUS had already twice brushed aside — gives the Court a doctrinally fresh and procedurally default-favorable route to simply decline a further stay (or deny cert) by Sept 28, letting HB1 automatically take effect without SCOTUS needing to reverse itself explicitly. NOT FOUND: No confirmation of any new SCOTUS docket number, filing, or scheduling order for the anticipated third emergency application as of Sept 23, 2026; no statement from any sitting Justice (besides Kavanaugh's earlier procedural actions) indicating sympathy for the 8th Circuit's Sept 21 reasoning specifically.

- [2026-09-10] The full Court's stay order in *People Not Politicians v. Onder* (26A326) was explicitly conditional and self-terminating: it stayed the district court's September 8 order "pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought," adding that "should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically." That means the operative legal instrument keeping the 2022 map alive is tied to a still-pending cert petition, not to any fresh order the Court must issue — a technicality that could let the block persist (or lapse) without any new "permitting" order at all, muddying what counts as SCOTUS "issuing an order permitting" HB1 under the resolution text. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091026zr_b07d.pdf) - [2026-09-08] Kavanaugh's first denial of Missouri's stay application was unexplained and non-precedential in form — he "denied the application without comment" — showing the Court's anti-HB1 stance so far has been procedural and non-reasoned, which cuts against confidence that a third ruling would affirmatively "permit" the map rather than simply deny relief again. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A326/423714/20260910093253182_PNP%20v.%20Onder%20-%20Opposition%20to%20Stay.pdf) - [2026-09-21] The Eighth Circuit panel itself acknowledged the Purcell-style mootness risk but pushed past it, ruling that absentee ballots "may be requested and cast beginning on September 22, 2026," and "that deadline has not yet arrived, and thus general absentee voting has not yet begun. Accordingly, the September 22, 2026, absentee ballot commencement date does not moot this case." That reasoning is now stale: absentee voting under the 2022 map began exactly as scheduled on Sept 22, and county clerks are already telling voters to expect further changes — the kind of on-the-ground chaos SCOTUS has twice cited as a reason to freeze the status quo rather than let a new map in. (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-again-ordered-to-use-gerrymandered-map-supreme-court-likely-to-decide/; https://abc17news.com/news/missouri/2026/09/22/county-clerk-offices-warn-residents-of-ballot-changes-amid-congressional-map-lawsuits/) - [2026-09-22] Local election administrators have already balked at implementing the 8th Circuit's mandate: "The Missouri Association of County Clerks and Election Authorities already announced it won't be using the 2025 map for November, arguing in an appeal filing that the state does not have enough time to provide new ballots." This administrative resistance gives SCOTUS an independent, election-integrity-based rationale (distinct from the merits) to again decline to let HB1 govern, consistent with its two prior interventions. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-appeals-court-orders-missouri-use-congressional-map-rejected-twice-supreme-court) - [2026-09-22] Numbers now on the record make the disruption cost of switching to HB1 far more concrete than earlier in the litigation: "More than 1.4 million Missourians sit in different districts under the two maps. About 284,000 already cast primary ballots in districts they would leave if the 2022 lines came back. In the 5th District, 57 percent of the people who live there under the 2025 map would be moved somewhere else." A commentator flagged the practical futility of the 8th Circuit's move given this: the ruling "almost certainly won't change a single ballot, since the U.S. Supreme Court has already blocked the map twice and absentee votes are already being cast." (https://americafirstreport.com/eighth-circuit-puts-missouri-back-on-the-gop-map/; https://dissenter.com/elections/8th-circuit-revives-mo-gop-map-scotus-blocked-twice) - [2026-09-08] The original PNP application to the 8th Circuit (later escalated to SCOTUS as 26A326) argued the district court's TRO was itself procedurally improper because "Only the United States Supreme Court—not a single federal district judge—has authority to review and reverse a state court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1257," an argument PNP will likely re-run against the 8th Circuit's permanent injunction, giving the Court a familiar, previously-successful jurisdictional hook to again decline HB1 rather than affirmatively "permit" it. (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-09-08-Emergency-Letter-Application-for-Immediate-Administrative-Stay-.pdf) - [2026-09-10] The Court's own docket confirms this is a formally distinct case number and party structure (26A326, *PNP v. Onder*) from the original 26A304 (*Hoskins v. von Glahn*) that Kavanaugh denied — meaning a third ruling requires fresh full-Court action on a new emergency application rather than simple continuation of a prior order, adding a procedural step (and possible delay/inaction) before any "permitting" order could issue. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a326.html) - [pattern] In both prior rounds the Court's action was to *deny relief to Republicans/HB1 proponents* or *grant relief to HB1's opponents* — the Court has never yet taken the step of ruling that HB1 may govern; the closest analogue is Kavanaugh's single-justice denial, which itself favored the anti-HB1 side. A true "Yes" resolution would require the Court's first-ever pro-HB1 order in this case, not merely inaction. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091026zr_b07d.pdf, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-missouris-attempt-use-newly-drawn-republican-cong-rcna596857) BOTTOM LINE: The strongest NO case rests less on the merits and more on mechanics: the existing Sept 10 stay is self-executing pending a cert petition (not requiring a new order), the Eighth Circuit's own Sept 28 trigger is arguably in tension with that still-pending stay, county clerks are refusing to implement HB1 logistically, and the Court has twice already ruled against HB1 without ever affirmatively "permitting" it — so even a Court that ultimately lets the Eighth Circuit's injunction stand by simply denying a new stay application (rather than issuing an order affirmatively "permitting" HB1) could arguably leave this market's specific resolution condition unmet before Nov 3. NOT FOUND: No confirmed new SCOTUS docket number or filing date for a third emergency application as of Sept 23; no text of any PNP cert petition (as opposed to emergency stay application) that would trigger the "disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari" language in the Sept 10 order; no statement from SCOTUS or its clerk's office addressing whether the Sept 10 stay's own terms remain operative now that the Eighth Circuit has "disposed of" the appeal.