Malliotakis v. Williams
The Supreme Court paused a New York trial court's order requiring the state's redistricting commission to draw a new congressional district designed to boost minority voting power — doing so before New York's own highest court had reviewed the order.
The 6-3 ruling drew a sharp dissent arguing the Court flouted its own rules against interfering in state court proceedings and against last-minute federal changes to state election maps, raising broad questions about how aggressively the Court will intervene in redistricting disputes ahead of the 2026 elections.
How it got here: A New York trial court ordered a new congressional district map; the state's intermediate appellate court denied a stay; applicants then applied directly to the Supreme Court for emergency relief before the state's highest court acted.
The Case in Depth
What happened
New York voters sued to challenge the boundaries of the Eleventh Congressional District, arguing the current lines dilute Black and Latino votes in violation of the New York Constitution. After a four-day trial, a New York trial court agreed and ordered the state's redistricting commission to create a new "crossover" district — one designed to let minority voters elect their preferred candidates with help from some White crossover voters. Representative Nicole Malliotakis, who holds the seat, and other applicants moved to block that order.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court pause a New York trial court's order requiring a new congressional district designed to give minority voters more electoral power, before New York's own highest court had a chance to weigh in?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court paused the New York trial court's order requiring a new congressional district to be drawn with minority voting power as its express purpose. The concurring opinion offered three reasons. First, the New York Court of Appeals' refusal to hear a direct appeal amounted to a final determination on the applicants' federal constitutional rights, giving the Supreme Court authority to step in under the statute that lets it review final state-court rulings touching federal law.
Second, acting now was necessary to protect the Court's ability to review the matter meaningfully before an approaching election made any remedy impractical. Third, the trial court's order almost certainly violates the Equal Protection Clause because it directed redistricting explicitly on race without any of the recognized constitutional justifications for race-based government action — making it very likely that the applicants would ultimately prevail on the merits.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
New York's Independent Redistricting Commission will not have to redraw the Eleventh Congressional District (Staten Island and part of southwestern Brooklyn) while the stay is in effect, meaning Representative Malliotakis can run in the existing district for now. The ruling also signals that parties in other redistricting disputes may seek emergency Supreme Court intervention at far earlier stages of state court litigation than was previously the norm.
What changes now
The stay holds while the case works through New York's state courts. The Appellate Division still needs to decide the underlying appeal on the merits; from there, the losing side may seek further review from the New York Court of Appeals. If and when New York's highest court issues a final ruling, the losing side can seek Supreme Court review by filing a petition for certiorari. The stay terminates automatically if the Court denies certiorari, or upon issuance of the Court's own mandate if certiorari is granted.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the trial court's order actually violates the federal Constitution, whether minority voters' claims under the New York Constitution are valid, or whether crossover districts are constitutionally permissible — a question the Court has explicitly left open in prior cases. No new district map has been drawn, and no remedial plan was evaluated.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Separate writings (1). Justice Alito (author of a concurrence).
Dissent (3). Justice Sotomayor (author), joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson.
Concurrence — Justice Alito
“That would provide a way of achieving what full review would not permit: the use of an unconstitutional district in the November election and the election of a Member of the House of Representatives whose entitlement to the office would be tainted.”Alito explains why waiting for state courts to finish would effectively allow a likely-unconstitutional result to become irreversible.
Justice Alito argued the stay was clearly warranted on all three required grounds. On jurisdiction, he read the New York Court of Appeals' transfer order as a constructive denial of relief — the functional equivalent of the final state-court ruling that gives the Supreme Court authority to act, just as in the Skokie case. On the merits, he called the trial court's order 'unadorned racial discrimination' that fails strict scrutiny because neither recognized compelling interest supports it. On the Purcell principle, he argued the stay reduces rather than causes disruption by halting a process that would likely produce an unconstitutional map.
Dissent — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor argued the Court violated every relevant limit on its authority. The Court lacked jurisdiction because no final ruling from New York's highest court existed, and defendants had not even asked the Court of Appeals for relief. The stay flouted the federalism principle that state courts should be left to resolve their own proceedings, including on federal questions. And it contradicted the Court's own Purcell doctrine, which the majority had invoked just months earlier to block federal district courts from changing election maps — now the Court applied the opposite rule to itself. She also noted the constitutional questions were far less clear than the majority assumed, since no remedial map had even been drawn yet. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Justice Alito's concurrence invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) — the statute that lets the Supreme Court review final state-court rulings on federal constitutional questions — and relied on National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977) for the proposition that when a state's highest court refuses to hear a direct appeal and thereby lets a constitutionally suspect order take effect, that refusal counts as a 'final judgment' giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction to act.
- The concurrence also argued the Court could act under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)), which lets the Court take steps 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' its jurisdiction. Without a stay, the redistricting process could conclude and be used in an election before the Court had any chance to review it, permanently impairing the Court's ability to provide a meaningful remedy.
- On the merits, the concurrence applied strict scrutiny — the most demanding constitutional test, requiring a compelling government reason and a law narrowly tailored to that reason — because the trial court's order explicitly directed that district lines be drawn to ensure minority voters could elect their preferred candidates, making race the express purpose of the new map.
- Drawing on Students for Fair Admissions (2023), the concurrence explained that the Court's precedents recognize only two compelling interests that can justify race-based government action: reducing prison-specific risks and remedying specific, identified past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a law. Neither interest was present here; the trial court based its order entirely on New York state law, which cannot authorize a violation of federal constitutional rights under the Supremacy Clause.
- On the Purcell principle — the Court's usual rule against federal courts making last-minute changes to election maps — the concurrence distinguished rather than applied it. Because the stay eliminates uncertainty rather than creates it (by halting a likely-unconstitutional redistricting process before it produces a map that would itself need to be undone), the principle that counsels restraint near elections actually supported the stay here.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie (432 U. S. 43)
Reaffirmed as authority that a state high court's refusal to stay a constitutionally suspect order can be a final judgment supporting Supreme Court review.
Distinguishes Purcell v. Gonzalez (549 U. S. 1)
Distinguished: Alito argued Purcell's restraint principle does not bar a stay that reduces rather than causes pre-election disruption.