By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court gave a potential boost to Republican hopes of retaining control of Congress in November’s elections, siding on Monday with a Republican lawmaker in a dispute over the makeup of the only congressional district in New York City held by a member of President Donald Trump’s party.
The court in an unsigned order granted a request by U.S. Representative Nicole Malliotakis, who is running for reelection, to revive the boundaries of her Staten Island-based U.S. House of Representatives district after a judge blocked the district’s geographical boundaries as racially discriminatory.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in support of Monday’s ruling. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
New York state Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Pearlman ruled in January that the configuration of the disputed district illegally diluted the power of Latino and Black voters, and ordered New York’s independent redistricting commission to draw a new map to remedy the violation. This prompted appeals by Malliotakis and members of the state’s board of elections filed in New York state court and to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alito criticized Pearlman’s order as itself racially discriminatory in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law.
The judge, Alito wrote, had ordered the state’s redistricting commission “to draw a new congressional district for the express purpose of ensuring that ‘minority voters’ are able to elect the candidate of their choice.”
“That is unadorned racial discrimination, an inherently ‘odious’ activity that violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause except in the ‘most extraordinary case,'” Alito wrote, citing past Supreme Court rulings.
Black and Latino voters have supported Democratic candidates at significantly higher rates than Republican candidates in U.S. elections.
A dissent authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by her two fellow liberal justices, faulted the court’s majority for ruling before the state appeals process had played out.
Sotomayor said the Supreme Court had thrust itself “into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many states redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.”
Republicans are seeking to retain control of both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections, and the ability of Malliotakis to win reelection could be crucial for her party.
Republicans hold a narrow 218-214 House majority, raising the stakes for every seat in the midterms. Ceding control of either the House or Senate to the Democrats would imperil Trump’s legislative agenda and open the door to Democratic-led congressional investigations targeting him and his administration.
‘UNPRECEDENTED BREACH’
Marina Jenkins, the executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, criticized the court’s decision to intervene while state court proceedings were still unfolding, calling it “an extraordinary and unprecedented breach of the principles that have long governed our federal system.”
“By short-circuiting New York’s judicial process before it has even run its course, the court has placed a thumb on the scale in favor of the partisan interest of the Republican Party,” Jenkins said. “The people of New York deserve to have the ability to seek justice in their state court free from meddling by activist justices on the Supreme Court.”
After the Supreme Court issued its decision, Ed Cox, chair of the New York Republican Party, accused Democratic state officials of backing what he called “a blatantly political case.” Cox said Alito correctly recognized that Pearlman’s order for a new map amounted to “a full-blown racial gerrymander.”
Gerrymandering is a term referring to reconfiguring an electoral district to give one party or group of voters an advantage.
The dispute arose from a lawsuit brought by a group of Staten Island-based voters backed by lawyer Marc Elias, a prominent advocate for Democratic electoral interests.
It was the latest case involving congressional districts that the Supreme Court has acted upon.
Redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a state is a process called redistricting, and there has been an escalating battle as some states reconfigure their districts for greater partisan advantage in the midterms.
The Supreme Court on December 4 revived a redrawn Texas electoral map designed to flip as many as five currently Democratic-held U.S. House seats to Republicans in the midterms. Trump had urged Texas Republicans to take the step. The justices on February 4 then allowed California to use a new electoral map designed to give Democrats five more congressional seats in the midterms.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
Comments