U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Virginia Redistricting Stay, Citing Federal Law Violations

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Virginia’s request for a stay of the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate a constitutional amendment authorizing the General Assembly to adopt new congressional maps. The Court’s order is available here, and the denied application is accessible here.

Days before Virginia’s deadline to begin administering the 2026 election for U.S. House members, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the amendment, which had been ratified by voters. The Court claimed the amendment’s passage violated a procedural requirement, arguing the term “election” in the state constitution encompassed the entire early voting period—not just Election Day—despite federal law defining it as a single day in November.

The state argued a stay was necessary, citing two critical federal law violations in the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision:

• Misreading of federal law: The Virginia Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state constitution relied on a flawed understanding of 2 U.S.C. § 7, which explicitly defines “election” as a single day for congressional elections. The Court cited Michigan v. Long (1983) and Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering (1984) to support intervention when state courts misapply federal law.
• Judicial overreach: The Virginia Supreme Court disregarded the plain text of the state constitution’s definition of “election,” effectively usurping the legislature’s authority to regulate federal elections. The Court referenced Moore v. Harper (2023) to argue that such transgressions justify reversal.

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that either violation alone justified reversing the lower court’s decision. It also noted a “reasonable probability” that it would grant certiorari and reverse the ruling on appeal.