New York trial judge Jeffrey Pearlman ordered the state to redraw a congressional district to guarantee minority voters elect candidates of their choice. The Supreme Court blocked the order March 2, calling it racial discrimination. The ruling came after Pearlman required the new district ensure minority-favored candidates typically win and that minority support be decisive in primaries.
Four New York voters filed a lawsuit in October 2025 claiming the 11th Congressional District violated the state constitution. The district covers Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn. It is the only Republican-held congressional district in New York City. The voters were represented by Elias Law Group, a Democratic firm.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, daughter of Greek and Cuban immigrants, currently represents the district. Trump won it in 2024 by 24 points. Malliotakis won reelection the same year by 28 points.
Judge Pearlman ruled for the plaintiffs on January 21. He found the district violated Article III, Section 4 of the New York Constitution. He ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission to create a crossover district meeting three requirements.
First, minority voters must be able to influence electoral outcomes. Second, minority-favored candidates must typically win general elections. Third, minority support must be decisive in primary elections. The order prohibited use of the current map and required a new map by February 6.
Black and Latino voters now comprise approximately 30 percent of the district population. The white population dropped to 56 percent. The order assumed minority voters share identical political preferences and mandated electoral outcomes based on race. Malliotakis, herself a minority, won her seat under the existing district lines.
Judge Pearlman created a new legal standard rather than using the standard the parties litigated. He pulled the standard from an amicus brief. Peter Kosinski, Republican co-chair of the Board of Elections, said the February 6 deadline made compliance impossible. Petition collection for ballot access starts February 24.
Malliotakis and state election officials appealed to two state courts. The New York Court of Appeals said it lacked jurisdiction. The Appellate Division declined to stay the order. They filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted the stay on March 2. This marked the third time the justices intervened in redistricting lawsuits ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Court previously allowed new maps in California and Texas to be used despite ongoing challenges.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the order constitutes unadorned racial discrimination. He said the trial court ordered the redistricting commission to draw a district for the express purpose of ensuring minority voters elect the candidate of their choice. That violates the Equal Protection Clause. Under the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot authorize violation of federal rights.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She accused the majority of executing an unexplained about-face. Federal courts have repeatedly said they should not meddle with state election laws ahead of elections. The Court took the unprecedented step of staying a state trial court decision before the state’s highest court could rule.
Republicans hold a House majority. The margin is 218 to 214. Democrats hoped the redraw would help them pick up the seat. The Trump administration weighed in supporting Republicans.
The Supreme Court rejected the trial court’s assumption that voters of particular races prefer particular political parties. Judge Pearlman treated minority voters as a monolithic bloc. The district’s current representative is herself a minority who won under lines the judge declared discriminatory.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 