Case: McDougle v. Nardo

This case concerned whether the Virginia General Assembly could use an ongoing special legislative session to advance a constitutional amendment affecting congressional redistricting. On October 18, 2025, two Virginia state senators, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and a citizen member of the Virginia Redistricting Commission filed this lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Tazewell County, Virginia. The plaintiffs sued the Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates, the Clerk of the Virginia Senate, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Virginia Senate, and the Clerk of the Tazewell County Circuit Court, each in their official capacity. The case was assigned to Circuit Judge Jack S. Hurley, Jr. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the clerks from transmitting or posting a proposed constitutional amendment related to congressional redistricting. The plaintiffs alleged that legislative leadership had improperly reconvened a special session of the Virginia General Assembly and expanded its scope to include a redistricting-related constitutional amendment, in violation of provisions of the Virginia Constitution governing special sessions and the process for proposing constitutional amendments.

The dispute arose after the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates reconvened the General Assembly’s 2024 special session in October 2025. The governor had originally called that session to address the state budget. During the reconvened session, legislators adopted House Joint Resolution 6006, which expanded the scope of business permitted during the session to include consideration of a constitutional amendment related to congressional redistricting. The plaintiffs alleged that only the governor had constitutional authority to convene or expand the scope of a special session and that the proposed amendment would improperly strip the Virginia Redistricting Commission of its authority to establish congressional district plans.

The plaintiffs sought emergency injunctive relief. After a hearing on October 29, 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order on October 31, 2025, and scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Following briefing and a hearing held on January 21, 2026, the court issued an order on January 27, 2026. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the special session had ended before October 2025, holding that the reconvened session remained valid. However, the court concluded that the General Assembly had violated its own procedural resolutions governing the scope of business permitted during the special session when it adopted a resolution expanding the agenda to include the proposed redistricting amendment. The court declared those actions void. The court further held that the amendment process failed to comply with Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution because the required intervening election between legislative approvals had not occurred and because statutory notice requirements had not been satisfied. The court granted injunctive relief requiring that the proposed amendment be posted at least ninety days before the next election of members of the Virginia House of Delegates.

On January 28, 2026, the legislative clerks filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.  On February 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia assumed jurisdiction over the appeal after the Court of Appeals certified the case for review because of its public importance. The Supreme Court ordered expedited briefing, permitted the Attorney General of Virginia to intervene, and denied motions to stay the circuit court’s injunction. The court noted that the injunction did not affect a referendum scheduled for April 21, 2026.

As of March 2026, the appeal remained pending before the Supreme Court of Virginia.