Case: Luther v. Hoskins

Every ten years, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a census, which serves as the basis for congressional apportionment. In 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the decennial census, and on August 12, 2021, it certified the census data to the Governor of Missouri. The General Assembly then engaged in the process envisioned by Article III, Section 45 of the Missouri Constitution and passed legislation enacting a new congressional map based on the 2020 census. The new congressional districts became effective on May 18, 2022.

No census has occurred since 2020, and no census has been certified to the Governor since August 12, 2021. In response to a special session proclamation from the Governor, the General Assembly enacted legislation redrawing Missouri's congressional districts in September, 2025. During the special session, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1, titled "To repeal sections 128.345, and 128.348, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof twelve new sections relating to the composition of congressional districts."

The Missouri Constitution requires the General Assembly to draw Missouri's congressional districts once every ten years, when the census is certified to the Governor under Article III, § 45. Plaintiffs — citizens of Missouri and residents of Cole County — allege that the new Missouri congressional map, enacted via House Bill 1 and codified in sections 128.345, 128.346, and 128.348, RSMo, is unconstitutional because House Bill 1 was enacted mid-decade without a new census having been certified to the Governor of Missouri.

On November 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a brief seeking a declaratory judgment that House Bill 1 is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction barring the Secretary of State of Missouri, and anyone acting in concert with him, from using the map enacted by House Bill 1 for any congressional primary or general election. Plaintiffs argued that absent an injunction, they would suffer irreparable harm because "being subject to an unconstitutional statute, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm." Rebman v. Parson, 576 S.W.3d 605, 612 (Mo. banc 2019).

Also on November 10, 2025, the State filed a brief arguing that under the Missouri Constitution, "the General Assembly has the [plenary legislative] power to do whatever is necessary to perform its functions except as expressly restrained by the Constitution." The State contended that Plaintiffs must point to "express" constitutional language prohibiting mid-decade redistricting, and that none exists. The State further argued that even if Plaintiffs could prevail on the merits, restoring the prior congressional map posed a serious risk of violating the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as the minority opportunity district in Missouri's First Congressional District may be unconstitutional. Granting Plaintiffs the remedies they sought, the State maintained, would likely force Missouri to violate the U.S. Constitution and plunge the State into legal chaos over which legislative map would govern the 2026 midterm elections.

On the same day, the Missouri Republican State Committee, as Intervenor, filed a brief in support of the State's position. The Intervenor argued that Plaintiffs could not carry their heavy burden of proving that House Bill 1 clearly and undoubtedly contravened the Constitution, since nothing in Article III, Section 45 "expressly prohibit[s]" the General Assembly from performing mid-decade congressional redistricting. The Intervenor further contended that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause grants the General Assembly plenary power to conduct congressional redistricting, including mid-decade redistricting.

The Missouri trial court held the trial on November 12, 2025. At trial, the court noted that Plaintiffs, in their one-count petition, did not challenge the substance of the new congressional map under House Bill 1 (e.g., whether the 2025 map was gerrymandered) but rather challenged the procedure by which House Bill 1 was passed. The court further noted that this provision is the sole provision within the Missouri Constitution that directly pertains to congressional redistricting.

The court analyzed the constitutional provision and determined that, on its face, it neither specifically allows nor specifically prohibits the Missouri legislature from creating a second congressional map using the same census. Missouri courts have consistently held that the legislature has the power to act unless expressly prohibited. Given that Section 45 contains no restrictive language, the court concluded that the legislature had the power to enact House Bill 1. The court also addressed Plaintiffs' reliance on Pearson v. Koster, finding that the language on which Plaintiffs relied was dicta and should not carry precedential value on the precise issue presented. The Pearson decision focused solely on the substance of the 2012 newly redistricted map itself and had nothing to do with the authority of the Missouri legislature to enact a second redistricting within the same census cycle.

The court also addressed Plaintiffs' argument comparing Section 45 to Section 14. The court observed that while Article III, Section 14 (governing state house and senate seats) includes language permitting those districts to be altered "from time to time as public convenience may require," Section 45 contains no such restrictive language. The court noted that the framers could have had any number of reasons for not specifically addressing multiple redistrictings in Section 45 — or perhaps there was no particular reason at all.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the legislature possesses plenary authority to enact laws except as expressly prohibited by the Constitution. In the absence of an express prohibition, the legislature had the plenary authority to enact House Bill 1 as a second redistricting measure. The court denied Plaintiffs' claim and requested relief, as well as all other pending motions and claims for relief. Judgment was entered on December 9, 2025, by Circuit Judge Christopher K. Limbaugh.

On December 15, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court from the judgment entered on December 9, 2025. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was invoked on the ground that the appeal involves the validity of a statute or provision of the Constitution of Missouri. The Missouri Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over "all cases involving the validity of ... a statute or provision of the constitution of this state." Mo. Const. art. V, § 3. The provisions of law at issue purport to draw new congressional districts for the State of Missouri.

On January 12, 2026, Appellants filed their brief on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County before the Honorable Christopher K. Limbaugh. Appellants sought a declaratory judgment that the challenged provisions are unconstitutional.

On the same day, sixteen Missouri voters spread across all congressional districts filed an amicus brief in support of Appellants. They argued that House Bill 1 constitutes an unlawful mid-decade congressional redistricting that will cause them irreparable representational harm absent an injunction. The Healey amici contend that Article III, § 45 authorizes congressional redistricting only once per decade, upon certification of decennial census results. Because House Bill 1 was enacted without a new census trigger after the 2022 map had already been drawn, they argue it is unconstitutional and that the circuit court's judgment should be reversed. In support, they point to the structural contrast with Article III, § 10's "from time to time" language governing state legislative redistricting, and to convention history demonstrating that the framers deliberately tethered congressional redistricting to the decennial census and nothing else.

Five Missouri voters — previously located in Congressional District 5 under the 2022 map and affected by the 2025 redistricting — also filed an amicus brief in support of Appellants. They argued that § 45's use of the word "when" constitutes a temporal limitation creating an implied prohibition on redistricting at any other time, consistent with Missouri's interpretive principles and with Pearson v. Koster's description of districts remaining in place for the next decade. They relied heavily on the 1943–44 constitutional convention history, including the rejection of proposals that would have allowed or required mid-decade congressional redistricting, to establish that § 45 was deliberately designed to synchronize congressional redistricting with the federal census and apportionment certification to the Governor and to bar mid-decade redraws. They further argued that out-of-state precedents from jurisdictions with similar timing provisions generally support reading such provisions to allow only one redistricting plan per decade, and that the federal Elections Clause does not authorize redistricting in violation of state constitutional limits.

On February 9, 2026, Appellee Secretary of State Hoskins argued that the case is legally straightforward under Missouri's plenary-power doctrine. Appellee recounted that House Bill 1 was enacted on September 12, 2025, and signed on September 28, 2025, to replace the 2022 congressional map. The circuit court rejected Appellants' claim after a trial on stipulated facts, holding that the legislature had plenary authority to redistrict mid-decade given the absence of any express constitutional prohibition. Appellee argued that history supports the absence of any implied ban, pointing to Missouri's mid-decade redistricting in 1877, the fact that § 45 was adopted specifically to ensure at least one post-census redistricting after decades of legislative failure to act, and the federal courts' allowance of multiple mid-decade redraws in the 1960s after maps were invalidated. Even if House Bill 1 were found unconstitutional, Hoskins argued that the Court should not disrupt the 2026 elections under the Purcell principle and should delay any remedy until after the election cycle.

The Missouri Republican State Committee, as Intervenor, also argued that Appellants cannot meet their heavy burden of proving that House Bill 1 "clearly and undoubtedly" violates the Missouri Constitution. The MRSC emphasized that the legislature enacted the 2022 map after the 2020 census certification and thereafter enacted House Bill 1 in 2025. The MRSC relied on Pearson v. Koster's statement that § 45 contains "only three requirements" (contiguity, compactness, and population equality) and noted that the framers used explicit "shall not / shall have no power" language elsewhere in the Constitution but chose not to include such language in § 45. The MRSC further argued that the federal Elections Clause affirmatively authorizes mid-decade congressional redistricting, and that reading an implied state-law prohibition from silence would depart from Missouri's "express restraint" rule and risk conflicting with Moore v. Harper's limits on state-court review under the Elections Clause.

On March 24, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed the circuit court's judgment declaring that House Bill 1 does not violate Article III, Section 45 of the Missouri Constitution, concluding that Section 45 obligates the General Assembly to redistrict when the United States census is certified to the governor but does not otherwise expressly limit the General Assembly's plenary power to legislate congressional districts. The majority rejected Appellants' argument that the word "when" means "only when," finding that against the backdrop of plenary legislative power, "when" simply triggers a time that the General Assembly must act, and does not limit redistricting to that time only. The Court also rejected the comparison to Article III, Section 10's "from time to time" language for state legislative districts, explaining that language was needed because a redistricting commission and that allowing a commission to redistrict more frequently than once a decade reflects a baseline understanding that mid-decade redistricting is generally permissible. The decision was authored by Judge Fischer, joined by Chief Justice Powell and Judges Broniec and Gooch, with Judge Wilson filing a dissenting opinion joined by Judges Ransom and Russell.