New York Republicans on Thursday filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to halt a state court decision that would require a new congressional map and potentially eliminate the state’s only Republican-held House seat ahead of the 2026 elections.
The petition, filed directly to the Supreme Court, asks justices to stay an order by a state judge in Manhattan who ruled the boundaries of the 11th Congressional District — currently represented by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R) — unconstitutionally dilute minority voting strength and must be redrawn.
Malliotakis and Republican members of the state elections board contend the ruling is disruptive so close to the election cycle, with nominating petitions scheduled to begin Feb. 24, and that last-minute changes to district lines could throw the state’s electoral process into chaos.
“Applicants and the people of New York have the right to conduct their congressional elections under the lawful map that the New York Legislature adopted starting on February 24, free from a judicial mandate that violates multiple provisions of the United States Constitution,” the congresswoman said in her petition to the justices.
The legal fight began after four Staten Island residents filed a lawsuit alleging that the current configuration of NY-11, which includes Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn, diluted the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters, in violation of the New York State Constitution. A trial court agreed and ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw the map by early February.
Malliotakis’ emergency filing argues the state court’s directive may impermissibly prioritize race in drawing district lines and exceeds the court’s authority, raising constitutional questions.
Democratic legal advocates have criticized the appeal as premature, saying the state appellate courts should resolve the dispute before the Supreme Court intervenes.
The case highlights broader national battles over redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms, with both parties engaging in litigation and legislative efforts to shape congressional maps. In other states such as Virginia, high court rulings have cleared the way for redistricting plans that could shift House seats to Democratic or Republican control, underscoring the high stakes of map drawing.
New York’s emergency request marks one of the latest high-profile redistricting clashes to reach the Supreme Court, which earlier allowed contested maps in Texas and California to be used in this year’s elections.
Two weeks ago, a Virginia state judge on Tuesday struck down a Democrat-led effort to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, calling the plan “invalid” and a blatant violation of the state’s constitutional procedures.
Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled that Democrats in the General Assembly failed to follow several key requirements when advancing a proposed constitutional amendment that would have authorized a mid-decade redistricting.
Democrats, who gained full control of the Virginia legislature and governor’s office in 2025, had fast-tracked the amendment in a special session earlier this month, seeking to push new maps that would have given them control of 10 of the state’s 11 U.S. House seats — despite the fact that nearly half of Virginians voted for President Donald Trump in 2024.
Hurley’s decision halts the plan entirely and prevents it from appearing on the ballot as a statewide referendum, ensuring that the 2026 elections will proceed under the existing congressional maps drawn after the 2020 Census.
In his ruling, Hurley said the General Assembly’s actions violated procedural rules in three ways: lawmakers failed to include the redistricting amendment in the official agenda for the special session, they did not approve the measure before the previous general election, and they failed to publish the amendment for public notice at least three months before that election — as required under Virginia law.
“The legislature cannot ignore its own constitutional obligations in the name of expediency,” Hurley wrote.