Hudson praises SCOTUS ruling in NY redistricting dispute

The North Carolina congressman leading Republicans’ national US House election efforts is praising the US Supreme Court’s latest redistricting ruling. Monday’s decision blocks New York from drawing a new congressional election map based on a state trial court order.

“This is a big, decisive win for our House majority and a clear setback for Democrats who were hoping to change the playing field,” said US Rep. Richard Hudson in a prepared statement. “With the lines staying in place for 2026, we’re energized, united, and in a strong position to keep building on our momentum and grow our majority.”

Chairman @RepHudsonNC’s Statement after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Democrat attempts to redistrict New York: pic.twitter.com/h2RbeFlcgB

— NRCC (@NRCC) March 3, 2026

Hudson chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee. He represents North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District.

The cases Malliotakis v. Williams and Kosinski v. Williams involved a Republican member of Congress, state election officials, and voters challenging a New York trial judge’s January order. It would have forced the state’s redistricting commission to draw a new congressional map.

Now the trial court order “is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the New York state courts and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought,” according to Monday’s unsigned, one-paragraph US Supreme Court order.

Justices split, 6-3, in supporting the decision.

“These cases concern a state-court order that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion backing the ruling. “The New York Supreme Court (that State’s trial-level court) ordered the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to draw a new congressional district for the express purpose of ensuring that ‘minority voters’ are able to elect the candidate of their choice.”

“That is unadorned racial discrimination, an inherently ‘odious’ activity that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause except in the ‘most extraordinary case,’” Alito continued. “Extraordinary circumstances exist only when the challenged state conduct is narrowly tailored to achieve a ‘compelling’ interest, and our precedents have identified only two compelling interests that can justify race-based government action: (1) mitigating prison-specific risks and (2) ‘remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute.’ Neither of those interests is present here.”

“Instead, the court based its injunction on an interpretation of state law,” the concurrence explained. “But under the Supremacy Clause, a state law cannot authorize the violation of federal rights. It is therefore an understatement to say that applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claim.”

Alito responded to dissenting justices’ criticism of the Supreme Court acting at this stage in the dispute. “[T]here is an unacceptably strong possibility that the applicants’ appeal in the state court system will not conclude until it is too late for us to review the ultimate decision by means of a writ of certiorari, even if it appears that the decision is based on a seriously mistaken understanding of the Constitution,” he wrote.

Waiting for the standard legal process to proceed could lead to “the use of an unconstitutional district in the November election and the election of a Member of the House of Representatives whose entitlement to the office would be tainted,” Alito wrote. “That is a prospect this Court should not countenance.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent for the court’s three Democratic appointees.

“The Court’s 101-word unexplained order can be summarized in just 7: ‘Rules for thee, but not for me,’” Sotomayor argued. “Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not interfere with state-court litigation. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an election.” “Today, the Court says: except for this one, except for this one, and except for this one,” Sotomayor added. “Ignoring every limit on federal courts’ authority, the Court takes the unprecedented step of staying a state trial court’s decision in a redistricting dispute on matters of state law without giving the State’s highest court a chance to act. Because that order violates basic principles of jurisdiction, federalism, and equity, I respectfully dissent.”

“Hudson praises SCOTUS ruling in NY redistricting dispute” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.