Hoskins v. von Glahn (Amicus)

UPDATE: On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Missouri Secretary of State’s request for a stay, ensuring that the unlawful 2025 congressional districts cannot be used for the midterm elections in November 2026.

The ACLU, the ACLU of Missouri, and the Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief in Hoskins v. Von Glahn, in support of Missouri voters, explaining why the U.S. Supreme Court should not intervene to allow the State of Missouri to implement an unlawful districting plan.

Missouri has eight congressional districts, one of which has historically been based in the Kansas City area. In direct response to partisan calls to gerrymander congressional districts before the 2026 midterm elections, Missouri engaged in mid-decade redistricting and passed HB 1, which seeks to dismantle Kansas City-based Congressional District 5. HB 1 would crack the city into three pieces and split them between three rural districts. This fracturing of Kansas City would prevent the area’s residents from uniting to have their voices heard by a single member of Congress.

The redraw of the lines around Kansas City was along racial lines—and is aimed at unseating one of the two Black members of Congress representing Missouri. In one highly populated area of Kansas City, the new lines bisect Black and white neighbors, literally placing different racial groups on opposite sides of the track.

After HB 1’s passage by the Missouri legislature in September 2025, more than 300,000 Missourians signed a referendum petition, as part of a campaign organized by People Not Politicians and Richard Von Glahn, to force the State of Missouri to put HB 1 to a vote by the people. A referendum would suspend HB 1 and prevent it from taking effect unless and until the people of Missouri approve the referendum. That would ensure that the midterm elections in November 2026 could be held using the districts in effect before Missouri’s mid-decade gerrymandering.

Missouri’s Secretary of State, however, refused to determine whether the referendum petition was legally sufficient, until one hour before the statutory deadline of 5:00 p.m. on August 4, 2026, when he issued a finding that the referendum petition was insufficient, arguing that the Missouri Constitution does not authorize referenda on congressional redistricting plans.

Mr. von Glahn, an organizer and signatory of the referendum petition signers, filed suit in Missouri state court that same day arguing that the Secretary violated state law and that he should be restrained from implementing, using, or mandating HB 1. The state trial court disagreed with Mr. von Glahn. He timely appealed directly to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The ACLU of Missouri, ACLU, and Campaign Legal Center, filed an amicus before the Missouri Supreme Court in support of Mr. von Glahn. The brief argued that redistricting legislation like HB 1 can legally be subjected to the referendum process provided for under the Missouri Constitution, and that doing so is consistent with federal law.

The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Mr. von Glahn. The Court rejected the Secretary’s interpretation of the Missouri Constitution, writing that redistricting legislation, like any other act of the Missouri Legislature, is subject to referendum petitions by Missourians. The Secretary’s decision not to include the referendum petition on the November 2026 general election ballot was thus unlawful. The Court also granted Mr. Glahn’s relief, restraining the Secretary from implementing, using, or mandating HB 1. Instead, Missouri’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan would remain in effect, which protects the congressional district in the Kansas City area where voters had been electing candidates of their choice to Congress for over 100 years.

The Secretary appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision violates the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution and other federal law. The ACLU of Missouri, ACLU, and Campaign Legal Center, filed another amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Mr. von Glahn, urging the Court not to disturb the Missouri Supreme Court’s findings and deny the Secretary’s application.