The Supreme Court in an emergency ruling this week temporarily blocked a New York state court order that would have required the redrawing of a congressional district represented by GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis – preserving the existing map for the 2026 midterm elections and perhaps provide an early glimpse into how the justices could approach another major redistricting case currently pending before them: Louisiana v. Callais.

Voters Challenge NY-11 in State Court

In October 2025, a group of voters sued New York election officials in state court, arguing their 11th Congressional District violates Article III, § 4 of the New York Constitution by diluting the voting power of Black and Latino residents.

NY-11 includes all of Staten Island and sections of southwest Brooklyn and is currently represented by Malliotakis.

The congresswoman and several voters intervened to defend the map, which was adopted by the New York Legislature in 2024 and approved by the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission.

After a four-day bench trial in January 2026, New York Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Pearlman ruled for the plaintiffs. Pearlman concluded that the district unlawfully deprived minority voters of an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

The court blocked the existing map and ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw NY-11 as a “crossover district” designed to enhance minority voters’ electoral influence in both primary and general elections.

State officials and Malliotakis appealed and sought emergency stays from the Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals, but both courts declined to halt the ruling while the appeal proceeded. The applicants then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief.

Supreme Court Intervenes 

In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court granted the stay requested by Malliotakis and co-applicants. The January 21, 2026, state trial court order is now stayed pending resolution of the state appeals (and any subsequent petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court). This means that the current NY-11 boundaries remain in effect for the 2026 midterm elections, preventing any immediate redraw.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito described the trial court’s order as “blatantly discriminat[ing] on the basis of race” by requiring a new district “for the express purpose of ensuring that ‘minority voters’ are able to elect the candidate of their choice.” 

Alito characterized the ruling as “unadorned racial discrimination” that likely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, citing the Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

He also noted that the Purcell principle – which cautions courts against making election-law changes close to an election – supported granting the stay to avoid disruption to the 2026 cycle.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented in the 6-3 decision.

Sotomayor argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because New York’s appellate process is still ongoing and warned that the majority’s intervention improperly interferes with state courts addressing issues of state constitutional law. She accused the Court of applying a “rules for thee, but not for me” approach to emergency election disputes.

What’s Next for NY-11

The case will now proceed through New York’s appellate courts, in which the legality of the district under the state constitution will be reviewed.

For now, however, the Supreme Court’s order locks in the existing map for the upcoming election cycle, ensuring that NY-11 will remain unchanged for the 2026 midterms.

The dispute could still return to the high court if the state courts ultimately uphold the trial court’s decision and the defendants seek review.

Implications for Louisiana v. Callais

The Court’s reasoning in the NY-11 case could also foreshadow its approach in Louisiana v. Callais, a closely watched redistricting case pending before the justices.

That case challenges Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district after federal courts concluded that the state’s prior map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength.

White voters subsequently sued, arguing that the new map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because race predominated in its design. A three-judge federal district court agreed and blocked the map.

The Supreme Court heard argument in March 2025, ordered reargument in October 2025, and requested briefing on a sweeping question: whether intentionally creating a majority-minority district – even to comply with the Voting Rights Act – violates the Constitution.

A decision is expected by June 2026.

Although the NY-11 dispute arises under state constitutional law, the language in Justice Alito’s concurrence closely tracks the constitutional arguments raised in Callais. His opinion suggests deep skepticism toward government actions that deliberately draw districts to ensure minority electoral success.

Because the same justices who granted the stay will decide Callais, the order may serve as an early signal that the Court could take a restrictive view of race-conscious redistricting – even when adopted to comply with federal voting-rights law. If that happens, Louisiana’s map – and similar redistricting remedies nationwide – could face an uphill battle when the Court issues its ruling later this year.