Case: Onder v. State of Missouri
4:26-cv-01424 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Filed Date: Sept. 4, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges a recent Missouri Supreme Court decision which held that the citizens of the state had a constitutional right to block House Bill 1, which drew new congressional districts favoring Republican voters and candidates, through a referendum. You can see the state case which produced the Missouri Supreme Court ruling HERE. Notably, the defendant in that case, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins requested that the United States Supreme Court stay that ruling, and his application was denied on September 8, 2026.
On September 4, 2026, Missouri’s United States House Representatives and current Republican Nominees for Congress Robert Onder and Richard Brattin, along with several individual Missouri voters, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against the State of Missouri and its Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, challenging a state court mandate to change congressional maps between the primary and general elections. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argued that a recent Missouri Supreme Court decision, which reverted the state to its 2022 districting maps by allowing House Bill 1 to be blocked by public referendum, unconstitutionally usurped the General Assembly’s authority to oversee federal redistricting. The plaintiffs contended that shifting boundaries mid-election violated the Elections Clause and the Equal Protection Clause by disenfranchising over one million citizens who already voted in primaries under the map drawn by House Bill 1. The plaintiffs further highlighted the administrative impossibility of reassigning hundreds of thousands of voters within weeks of the November general election. Ultimately, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to restore the legislatively approved districts.
This case is assigned to Judge Stephen R. Clark.
The same day they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. They requested that the Court enjoin Missouri’s Secretary of State from implementing the use of any congressional district map other than the HB1 map for the November 3, 2026 general election. Along with their motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court expedite consideration of the preliminary injunction given the imminence of the election.
Following the plaintiffs’ motion, also on September 4, 2026, the defendants filed a response in support of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. They agreed that because the plaintiff candidates will be forced to compete in districts in which they did not run in the Primary Election, and the plaintiff voters will be forced to cast general-election ballots for different candidates than they originally considered, the circumstances of this case warrant the court to expeditiously grant a temporary restraining order.
On September 5, 2026, People Not Politicians (PNP), and Richard von Glahn, who were together responsible for gathering the signatures required for the referendum petition on HB1 and submitting the petition, moved to intervene as defendants. They argued that they are true parties in interest in this case, and that the defendants currently listed here will not adequately pursue their interests, as the current defendants’ motivations appeared to be aligned with the plaintiffs’ interests. Along with their motion to intervene, the proposed intervenors filed a supplemental motion to dismiss, arguing that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint is a collusive, feigned case, that the United States Supreme Court’s pending motion to stay in the related Missouri state case independently required dismissal of this case, as it divests authority from this Court, and that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine bars this court from engaging in appellate review of the Missouri State Supreme Court’s decision.
The plaintiffs filed several memoranda in opposition to intervention and the proposed intervenors’ motion to dismiss on September 6, 2026, claiming that this case is not collusive, and additionally that this case is a separate and independent action from the currently pending application in the Supreme Court to stay the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling, such that any decision that the Supreme Court issues may moot parts of the claims here, but does not automatically divest jurisdiction from this court.
The named defendants in this case also filed their motion to dismiss on September 6, 2026. They primarily argued that the defendant State of Missouri had not waived its sovereign immunity and that its sovereign immunity had not been abrogated by Congress with respect to this case, rendering Missouri immune to this suit.
The Court granted von Glahn and PNP’s motion to intervene on September 8, 2026 and entered their previously filed supplemental motion to dismiss into the record.
Also on September 8, the Supreme Court denied the pending motion to stay in the Missouri State case, meaning that the State could proceed with using the 2022 Congressional districts. After being given notice of this development by the plaintiffs, the court in this case issued a memorandum and order granting the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order, which ordered Missouri to use the HB 1 congressional map for the 2026 general election. The court determined that changing the map so late would cause irreparable harm by disenfranchising voters and stripping candidates of their primary victories. By invoking the Equal Protection Clause and Article I, Section 2, the court found that the public interest is best served by maintaining the electoral status quo.
Following the court’s order, intervenor defendant von Glahn filed an emergency motion to stay the temporary restraining order and an emergency notice appealing the order to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Still in the district court, on September 9, 2026, defendant Secretary Hoskins filed a motion to enjoin the Supreme Court of Missouri from holding him in contempt for implementing the use of the HB1 congressional district map in the November election as ordered by this court pursuant to the All Writs Act. The court denied this request in an order issued the same day, reasoning that to do so would upset the principles of federalism and that the Supreme Court would likely weigh in on intervenor-defendants’ application to stay, resolving the issue for both courts without the need to enjoin the state court’s decision.
Meanwhile in the Eighth Circuit, the intervenor-defendants von Glahn and PNP filed an emergency motion for a stay on September 8, 2026, requesting that the appellate court stay the district court’s temporary restraining order pending the appeal.
The following day, on September 9, 2026, the intervenor-defendants filed a motion requesting that the Eighth Circuit summarily reverse the lower court’s temporary restraining order, on largely the same legal theories that they argued justified dismissal in the lower court: that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and that this case is collusive. They also argued that statutory law requires an action challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts to be reviewed by a three judge panel, meaning that the lower court’s determination by a single judge was inappropriate.
The Eighth Circuit denied the motion for a stay the same day, on September 9, 2026, in a short order which explained that either the factors for granting a stay had not been met or that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court will continue to receive briefing on the issues, with briefing on the merits due on September 15, 2026.
After the Eighth Circuit declined to stay the district court’s temporary restraining order, the intervenor-defendants filed an emergency application to stay the decision in the United States Supreme Court, on September 9, 2026. The plaintiffs filed their response the following day
The Supreme Court granted the intervenor-defendants’ request and granted the stay on September 10, 2026. The Court issued only a short order, without reasoning. Consequently, the district court’s temporary restraining order is currently stayed pending the disposition of the Eighth Circuits’ appeal. This means that as of now, the state of Missouri must adhere to the 2022 congressional map, rather than the maps drawn by HB1, pursuant to the Missouri Supreme Court’s order.
Back in the Eighth Circuit, on September 10, 2026, the court set an expedited briefing schedule, given the urgency of these election issues.
After the parties completed briefing, on September 17, 2026, the court heard oral argument in front of a three judge panel.
On September 21, 2026, the court issued an opinion permanently enjoining the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision to revert back to the 2022 Congressional districting lines per the public referendum. The court determined that switching maps between the primary and general elections would disenfranchise voters and violate Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By forcing a constituency change mid-election cycle, the court found that approximately 1.4 million Missourians would be deprived of their right to participate in a consistent selection process. Consequently, the court issued a permanent injunction requiring the use of the 2025 map, asserting that federal constitutional protections override conflicting state-level mandates. Judge Stras wrote separately to partially dissent, arguing that the appeal should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the intervenor-defendants, PNP and von Glahn, lack standing to bring the appeal without the named defendant. Judge Stras argued that von Glahn failed to allege any concrete, individual harm to his rights as a voter, leaving the court without jurisdiction to reach the constitutional merits of the case.
The same day, PNP and von Glahn filed an emergency motion requesting that the Supreme Court recall the Eighth Circuit’s mandate and stay the court’s order, arguing that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over this redistricting dispute and that changing maps while absentee voting is beginning violates the Purcell principle against eleventh-hour election interference.
On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an order staying the Eighth Circuit’s injunction, and thereby allowed Missouri to proceed with the use of the 2022 congressional map for voting in the November election. Citing the Purcell principle, the Justices emphasized that federal courts must refrain from altering election procedures while voting is actively underway. The Justices both expressed frustration with Eighth Circuit’s effort to circumvent the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in this matter, and emphasized that the traditional stay factors justify the Court’s decision.
This case is ongoing. As of the September 25, 2026 Supreme Court ruling, Missouri is obligated to proceed with the November election using the 2022 districting map.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (9/30/2026)
Related Cases
von Glahn v. Hoskins, Missouri state trial court (2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74754230/parties/onder-v-state-of-missouri/
Bell, Stephanie (Missouri)
Bradbury, Cole David
Capozzi, Louis Joseph (Missouri)
Barrett, Alexander C. (Missouri)
Bax, Greta M. (Missouri)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74754230/onder-v-state-of-missouri/
Last updated Oct. 21, 2026, 5:16 p.m.
Docket for: Onder v. State of Missouri
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 4, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Missouri’s United States House Representatives and current Republican Nominees for Congress Robert Onder and Richard Brattin, and several individual Missouri voters
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Denny Hoskins
State of Missouri
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Missouri 4:26-cv-01424
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 26-02797
Supreme Court of the United States 26A326
Supreme Court of the United States 26A388
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Voting:
Challenges to at-large/multimember district/election
Redistricting/district composition
Case Summary of Onder v. State of Missouri, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48434/ (last updated 9/30/2026).