Supreme Court Preserves NY GOP-Held Congressional District (1)

A sharply divided US Supreme Court halted the redrawing of a Republican-held congressional district in New York City in a decision likely to keep the seat safely in GOP hands in the November election.

Over dissents from the court’s three liberals, the justices on Monday put on hold a state court decision that said a new map is needed because the current 11th District dilutes Black and Hispanic votes in violation of the New York constitution. The high court decision grants a request from Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis.

The move preserves a Staten Island-anchored district that has been New York City’s most durable Republican perch since the early 1980s. Malliotakis has held the seat since 2021, and a redrawing might have put the district in play.

The court as a whole didn’t explain its reasoning, but Justice Samuel Alito said in a concurring opinion that state court order “blatantly discriminates on the basis of race.” A New York judge had ruled that the number of racial minorities in the district had grown so large that the state constitution required them to have a better chance at electing their preferred candidate.

Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the majority for intervening despite saying in past rulings that federal courts shouldn’t order changes to state voting rules with the election close at hand.

“The court’s 101-word unexplained order can be summarized in just 7: ‘Rules for thee, but not for me,’” she wrote for herself and Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Redistricting Fights

The clash is among a flurry of legal fights around the country over the voting lines that will govern the midterm elections as Democrats try to seize control of the House of Representatives. The 11th District fight is unique because it centers on state law and had been playing out in New York court – factors that Democrats said made US Supreme Court intervention inappropriate.

The order by New York Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey H. Pearlmancame in a lawsuit by voters who said the existing 11th District was illegal. Pearlman directed the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to propose a new map for the state legislature’s consideration. New York’s Supreme Court is its trial-level court.

Malliotakis contended that Pearlman’s order would require a racial gerrymander in violation of the US Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Trump administration backed Malliotakis in the case.

Both sides told the Supreme Court that the calendar was on their side. Malliotakis and the Republicans said Pearlman’s order threatened to upend New York’s congressional elections. The New York primary is scheduled for June 23.

But Democrats pointed to a line of Supreme Court decisions saying that federal judges shouldn’t disrupt an election by changing state voting rules at a late date. The principle has come to be known as the Purcell doctrine because of a 2006 decision with that name. The Supreme Court has never applied Purcell to itself, only to lower federal courts.

Alito said in his concurring opinion that high court intervention was warranted to ensure an unconstitutional district wouldn’t be used in November. “That is a prospect this court should not countenance,” he wrote.

The lead case is Malliotakis v. Williams, 25a914.

(Updates with excerpts from opinions starting in fourth paragraph.)

To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth

© 2026 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.