A new analysis in Reason's Volokh Conspiracy sharply criticizes the Supreme Court's emergency ruling in the Missouri redistricting case, calling the decision unsatisfying on multiple fronts. The author argues that the Court's brief order failed to explain which of the two applicants—People not Politicians or Richard Von Glahn—had standing, instead concluding only that "at least one" did. That vague language, the piece suggests, may reflect a dodge rather than a reasoned judgment, especially since Eighth Circuit Judge David Stras had offered a compelling argument that neither party had standing.
On the merits, the analysis contends that the Court did not require the applicants to make a clear showing of likely success, as its own precedents demand. Instead, the ruling appears to rest on the Purcell principle, which counsels against late-breaking changes to election procedures. The author concludes that when electoral chaos looms, the Court is willing to set aside both jurisdictional and merits questions—an approach that leaves lower courts guessing about what the emergency docket actually means.
The piece also highlights Judge Stras's public remarks at William & Mary Law School, where he said it would have been "incredibly helpful" for the justices to explain what was left for the lower courts to decide. The author further criticizes the Court for accepting one side's account of disputed facts and for giving Missouri only 14 hours to file a reply. The overall upshot, the analysis argues, is that the emergency docket has become a place where equities alone drive outcomes, at the expense of legal clarity and respect for state sovereignty.