Supreme Court Retains GOP District in NY, Giving Republicans Midterms Win
The Supreme Court on Monday said it would keep New York’s current congressional map in place, temporarily blocking a lower court ruling that had found the map violated the Constitution by diluting the voting power of Black and Latino residents.
The unsigned emergency order did not include a vote count or written reasoning, which is typical for decisions issued on the court’s emergency docket. The decision allows the existing map to remain in place while appeals continue, making it likely the map will be used in the upcoming midterm elections, the New York Times
reported.
The ruling was a victory for Republicans and could help them retain control of a closely divided House of Representatives.
Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican whose district includes Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn, filed the emergency application after a state judge ordered her district to be redrawn.
In a statement, Malliotakis said the justices had “stopped the voters on Staten Island and in southern Brooklyn from being stripped of their ability to elect a representative who reflects their values.”
The case centers on New York’s 11th Congressional District, the only district in New York City currently held by a Republican.
The dispute is one of several mid-cycle redistricting battles that have reached the Supreme Court after President Donald Trump encouraged Republicans to pursue map changes that could strengthen the party’s position in Congress.
Texas redrew its congressional map, and California voters approved a ballot measure revising that state’s map in a way that favored Democrats.
In both instances, legal challenges were brought to the Supreme Court, and the justices allowed the new maps to be used for the midterms.
The New York case also unfolds as the court considers a separate voting rights dispute, Louisiana v. Callais, involving the creation of a second majority minority district in Louisiana.
A ruling in that case could have broader implications for congressional maps nationwide.
In the New York matter, the court’s three liberal justices dissented.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in a 13-page dissent that the court had inserted itself into election law disputes during an active redistricting cycle.
“By granting these applications, the court thrusts itself into the middle of every election law dispute around the country, even as many states redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election,” Sotomayor wrote.
She warned that the decision could prompt more emergency appeals “without even bothering to ask the state courts first.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing in concurrence, said he supported blocking the lower court’s order.
He wrote that the lower court had engaged in “blatantly discriminated on the basis of race,” calling it “unadorned racial discrimination” that violated the Constitution.
The legal challenge began last October when four New Yorkers sued over the district held by Malliotakis.
The lawsuit was filed by the Elias Law Group, which has represented Democratic interests in redistricting cases.
In January, Manhattan Justice Jeffrey H. Pearlman ruled that the 2024 map showed a pattern of discrimination against minority voters and ordered the state to reconvene its Independent Redistricting Commission.
Pearlman previously served as special counsel to Governor Kathy Hochul.
Malliotakis filed her emergency application on Feb. 12 to Justice Sotomayor, who handles emergency matters from that region.
Court filings show that the Black and Latino population in the 11th District has grown to about 30 percent, up from 11 percent over the past four decades.
Despite that demographic shift, the district has become more conservative.
It was the only New York City district won by Donald Trump in 2016, and in 2020, he carried it over Joseph R. Biden Jr. by 24 percentage points.
That same year, Malliotakis defeated incumbent Democrat Max Rose.
Obama Accuses JD Vance Of Promoting ‘Blood And Soil’ Politics
Former President Barack Obama rarely mentions Vice President JD Vance by name, but that changed this week with one of his sharpest public attacks since Vance took office.
The comments immediately fueled speculation that Democrats are beginning to focus more attention on the vice president as Republicans look ahead to the post-Trump era.
Speaking Thursday during a conversation with author Malcolm Gladwell, Obama accused Vance of promoting what he described as a “blood and soil” vision of America, despite being married to Usha Vance, the daughter of Indian immigrants.
Obama made the remarks while discussing the Reconstruction era and arguing that many of the same debates over citizenship, voting rights and national identity continue today.
“We have a politics now that at least one of our major parties has been captured by politics that is not that subtle about suggesting that ‘We the people’ means a certain kind of people,” Obama said.
“When you have the vice president, current vice president, making a speech that is basically a blood and soil version of ‘We the people,’ that it matters who your parents were and how long they’ve been here despite him being married to a daughter of an immigrant himself.”
The phrase “blood and soil” is historically associated with Nazi Germany and white nationalist ideology.
Obama went on to argue that debates over who belongs in America remain central to the nation’s politics.
“That echoes, then, ideas about who can be a citizen, who belongs, who gets to make decisions,” he said.
Gladwell followed by accusing Vance of hypocrisy, arguing that the vice president was making what he called a nativist argument despite his own family’s immigrant background.
Obama agreed.
“That is progress,” Obama said.
“Listen, hypocrisy is progress. It is, because it means that you feel guilty enough to either lie to yourself or others.”
Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to Vance’s office for comment.
Obama did not identify the specific speech he was criticizing, but Vance’s most recent nationally televised remarks came during Independence Day celebrations marking America’s 250th birthday.
In that speech, Vance encouraged Americans to reject what he called a “two-dimensional view” of the country focused only on its historical failures.
“So what I’d ask you to do, my fellow Americans, on our 250th birthday, is to reject the two-dimensional view of your fellow citizens and reject the two-dimensional view of your country,” Vance said.
“Reject the view of your nation that sees only its sins, but not its grace and its greatness.”
He also emphasized that America’s accomplishments were achieved by “a common people working towards a common future.”
Obama has generally avoided making Vance a regular target since the vice president took office.
One notable exception came during the 2024 presidential campaign when then-Vice President Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate.
Without naming Vance directly, Obama contrasted Harris’ choice with the Republican ticket.
“When a presidential candidate chooses a running mate, it says a lot about who they are and what kind of president they’ll be,” Obama said at the time, Fox News reported.
Political observers have increasingly discussed Vance as a potential frontrunner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, though he has not announced any plans to run.
Against that backdrop, Obama’s unusually direct criticism is likely to fuel speculation that some Democrats are beginning to sharpen their message against a politician they view as a likely future standard-bearer for the Republican Party. While no Democratic leaders have publicly described their strategy in those terms, prominent figures often begin drawing contrasts with potential future rivals well before a presidential campaign officially begins.
Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen, but Obama’s remarks marked one of his most pointed critiques of Vance to date and ensured the vice president once again found himself at the center of the national political conversation.
