The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 ruled that the boundaries of the only Republican-held congressional district in New York City do not need to be adjusted in time for the approaching midterm elections in November.
The justices blocked a lower court ruling that had ordered New York’s redistricting commission to redraw the district after a finding that it was unfair to Latino and black residents.
Six justices voted for the block, while three dissented. The brief court order did not provide reasons for the ruling.
The lawmaker who represents the seat, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) had challenged the lower court ruling.
New York’s 11th congressional district consists of Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn.
On Feb. 12, Malliotakis, who has represented the district since 2020, filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to stay a New York court’s order requiring redistricting.
The New York State Legislature adopted the district’s current boundaries two years ago with “an overwhelming majority of the Legislature’s Black and Latino members voting in favor of it,” according to the application.
However, plaintiffs challenged the district boundaries about four months ago, operating on the theory that the votes of the district’s black and Latino voters, who make up about 23 percent of the district, have been “unconstitutionally diluted because their candidate of choice wins only 25 percent of the time,” the application said.
The state-level trial court ruled that the state could not proceed with any elections under the congressional map until the district “added Black and Latino voters from elsewhere” to the point that black and Latino voters “are able [to] control contested primary elections, and their candidates of choice win a majority of all elections” in the district, according to the application.
Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the Supreme Court’s new order, saying the state court ruling “blatantly discriminates on the basis of race.”
The lower court had ordered the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to draw a new 11th congressional district “for the express purpose of ensuring that ‘minority voters’ are able to elect the candidate of their choice.”
Alito said that ruling was “unadorned racial discrimination.”
Although the state court based its order on its interpretation of state law, under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, a state law may not authorize the violation of federal rights, so it is “an understatement to say that applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claim,” Alito said.
The Supreme Court is justified in intervening here “because there is an unacceptably strong possibility that the applicants’ appeal in the state court system will not conclude until it is too late for us to review the ultimate decision … even if it appears that the decision is based on a seriously mistaken understanding of the Constitution,” he said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion dissenting from the Supreme Court’s new ruling.
“Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an election,” she said.
“Ignoring every limit on federal courts’ authority, the Court takes the unprecedented step of staying a state trial court’s decision in a redistricting dispute on matters of state law without giving the State’s highest court a chance to act. Because that order violates basic principles of jurisdiction, federalism, and equity, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor said.
By intervening now before the case has worked its way through the state court system, the Supreme Court is inviting “parties searching for a sympathetic ear to file emergency applications directly with this Court, without even bothering to ask the state courts first,” the justice said.
Sotomayor’s dissent was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared March 2, 2026, in The Epoch Times.
Photo: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito