Democracy Docket: "The court relied on trial evidence, including data showing racially polarized voting and historical patterns of discrimination. It grounded its decision in the New York Constitution — which the court said provides broader protections against vote dilution than federal law….The U.S. Supreme Court generally does not overturn state court rulings that rest on independent state constitutional grounds unless there is a clear federal constitutional violation.”
GOPer asks SCOTUS to restore her district after court found it discriminated against minority voters
By Yunior Rivas
February 12, 2026
After a New York court struck down the state’s current 11th Congressional District for diluting the voting power of Black and Latino residents, U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to freeze the decision.
Malliotakis – who currently represents the district — and several voters filed an emergency application for stay with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the circuit justice for the 2nd Circuit. They are asking the Supreme Court to halt the state court’s order that declared the district unconstitutional and directed New York’s Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw it.
The applicants describe the earlier decision as destabilizing and disruptive.
“The trial court’s order has thrown New York’s elections into chaos on the eve of the 2026 Congressional Election,” the application states. “That is a recipe for unconstitutional chaos, with no map in place and uncertainty as to whether nominating petitions can start circulating on February 24, with no end in sight.”
The emergency request frames the state court’s ruling — which found that the current boundaries of the 11th District unlawfully weakened Black and Latino voters’ ability to influence elections — as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Specifically, the applicants argue the earlier decision forces race to be the controlling factor in drawing the district’s lines.
“The trial court violated the Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting New York from running congressional elections until the State racially gerrymanders CD11,” the filing asserts. “The ‘predominant’ — and, indeed, sole — ‘motive for the design of the district’ that the trial court mandated is ‘race for its own sake.’”
They further contend that the court barred elections under the existing map unless the district is redrawn by “‘adding [enough] Black and Latino voters from elsewhere,’” so that minority voters would control primaries and win most general elections.
The application also argues the state court exceeded its authority by adopting what it calls a new and unsupported legal standard for evaluating vote dilution — a term that refers to drawing districts in a way that weakens a group’s electoral influence.
“The trial court violated the Elections Clause by adopting an unbriefed, atextual test to invalidate a legislatively-adopted congressional map,” the filing states. “By retroactively constitutionalizing a novel crossover-district theory and then using that theory to strike down a legislatively adopted congressional map the trial court ‘transgress[ed] the ordinary bounds of judicial review.’”
The underlying ruling, issued last month, concluded that the existing Staten Island– and South Brooklyn–based district leaves Black and Latino voters without a meaningful opportunity to influence elections.
The court relied on trial evidence, including data showing racially polarized voting and historical patterns of discrimination. It grounded its decision in the New York Constitution — which the court said provides broader protections against vote dilution than federal law.
The U.S. Supreme Court generally does not overturn state court rulings that rest on independent state constitutional grounds unless there is a clear federal constitutional violation. The applicants attempt to frame the case as exactly that — arguing that enforcing state-level protections now requires impermissible race-based action.
Their filing also heavily alludes to what is known as the Purcell principle — the idea that courts should avoid changing election rules too close to an election. But while nominating petitions are scheduled to begin circulating Feb. 24, the general election itself remains months away.
In a separate filing Thursday, New York State Board of Elections officials also asked the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief, arguing that the injunction has effectively frozen election administration statewide.
Unlike the application filed by the district’s Republican incumbent and voters, the Board’s request centers on what it describes as immediate administrative disruption and claims the trial court adopted a novel legal standard without giving the parties an opportunity to fully litigate it.
Justice Sotomayor can deny the stay herself or refer the request to the full Court.
The stakes extend beyond Staten Island and Brooklyn.
Across the country, Republican-led states have pursued aggressive mid-decade redistricting to entrench congressional majorities, encouraged by President Donald Trump. The New York ruling was widely seen by voting rights advocates as a counterweight — and as a reminder that state constitutions can still protect fair representation even as federal courts appear poised to narrow the Voting Rights Act.
NEXT UP
.Virginia Supreme Court says redistricting vote can go forward
• Is Missouri’s new gerrymandered map in effect? That depends on a court — and the clock
• California asks Supreme Court to reject GOP map challenge
• New York court strikes down congressional map, potentially handing Dems another seat
• California GOP appeals their redistricting loss to Supreme Court in last-ditch bid to block voter-approved map
• Federal court blocks key parts of Trump’s anti-voting order, restores states’ control over elections