The Missouri Supreme Court has upheld the legislature's right to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade.
It's a major win for backers of a redistricting plan passed last year at the behest of President Donald Trump. But it does not necessarily mean that the plan aimed at giving Republicans an additional seat in Congress will be in place for the 2026 election.
Missouri lawmakers redrew the state's congressional lines last September, part of a national push that Trump backed to tilt enough seats to prevent Republicans from losing control of the U.S. House this year. Texas, North Carolina and Ohio have implemented new maps that benefit Republicans, while California and Utah put more Democratic-leaning plans in place.
Opponents of Missouri's redistricting sued, contending that the state constitution didn't provide explicit authorization to pursue redistricting long after a census. The court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that a new map drawn in 2025 is valid, because there's nothing in the Missouri Constitution explicitly prohibiting lawmakers from doing it.
"The crux of Appellants' argument is that, because [the Missouri Constitution] identifies a specific time when the General Assembly shall legislate new congressional districts, the General Assembly cannot redistrict at any other time," wrote Judge Zel Fischer in the majority opinion. "Appellants are incorrect."
Fischer was joined by Judges Ginger Gooch, Brent Powell and Kelly Broniec. It upheld Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh's decision that the 2025 map was valid.
"Appellants and the dissenting opinion argue the word 'when' sets the time for redistricting and, therefore, necessarily prohibits redistricting at any other time. In other words, they contend the word 'when' means 'only when,'" wrote Fischer, referring to the constitutional provision that lays out the parameters of congressional redistricting. "But the word 'when' does not mean 'only when.' Against the backdrop of plenary legislative power to redistrict at any time, the word 'when' as used in [the Missouri Constitution] simply triggers a time that the General Assembly must legislate congressional districts, and does not limit redistricting to that time only."
Judges Paul Wilson, Robin Ransom and Mary Russell dissented. Wilson wrote that the argument by the map's defenders boils down to the idea that the constitution "expressly forbids the general assembly from redrawing congressional districts as often as it pleases as long as the first such effort occurs when each decennial census and apportionment is certified to the governor."
"The plain language of [the Missouri Constitution] unmistakably states 'when' and 'how' the general assembly may – indeed, must – draw new congressional districts," Wilson wrote in his dissent. "When the constitution instructs the general assembly 'when' and 'how' a power is to be exercised, there is a 'strong presumption that it was designed to be exercised in that time and mode only.' This should end the analysis."
A win for the map's defenders
The upshot of the Supreme Court's decision is that a map that seeks to oust Cleaver may end up being in effect at some point.
In addition to placing Kansas City into three largely rural districts, the plan, dubbed the Missouri First Map by proponents, also substantially overhauls GOP Reps. Ann Wagner and Bob Onder's seats and changes Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell's district as well. All three represent portions of the St. Louis region.
"Just because some people don't like the map doesn't mean it's not the map," Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said after the ruling Tuesday. "The map's the map. And the Supreme Court said today: 'You guys win, the map can be redrawn mid-decade,' and importantly, we just keep winning on these issues at every level."
Hanaway was referring to how her office prevailed in a case challenging whether the congressional map violated constitutional compactness requirements.
But since redistricting opponents submitted signatures to place the new lines up for a statewide vote, it's possible, especially if voters reject the redistricting plan, it may never be implemented.
"This was a battle in a bigger war," said Chuck Hatfield, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case.
The group People Not Politicians announced Monday that preliminary data from Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' office showed it likely has enough signatures for a November 2026 vote. And a Cole County judge is still mulling over a case about whether People Not Politicians submitted enough signatures last year to prevent the 2025 map from going into effect.
If judges ultimately say that a map passed in 2022 will be active for this election cycle, it effectively guarantees Cleaver will win since that version of the 5th District is heavily Democratic.
"We obviously disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, as it was clearly not the intent of the constitution's framers to allow random redistricting at politicians' whims," said Richard von Glahn of People Not Politicians in a statement. "The ultimate power lies with the voters of our state, with more than 300,000 having signed a petition to put this issue on the ballot. In spite of the obstruction by state officials, we will continue the fight to let people, not politicians, serve as the final word."
Hatfield noted that the decision means that it's now possible for lawmakers to have multiple congressional redistricting battles in the span of a decade.
"I certainly respect the Supreme Court. And the majority of the court ruled that the legislature has the authority to do this," Hatfield said. "That doesn't make it a good idea. It was a bad idea to do it. And the court's decision today means that the legislature will engage in congressional redistricting more often than they have in the past. And we will have more battles about congressional redistricting than we used to."
Hanaway said that it's unlikely that lawmakers will be pursuing new redistricting plans every single year they're in session.
"Even when the districts benefit one party over another, it is hard to divide up the state in a way that satisfies a majority of the General Assembly and a majority of the congressional delegation," Hanaway said. "So even though there won't be legal impediments, I think the practical impediments make it unlikely that this is going to be a frequent occurrence."
A victory for the 'Air Bud' rule
The court's decision is similar to a construction popularized in the 1997 film "Air Bud."
In that movie, opponents of Buddy the Dog entering a basketball game contended that the rules didn't allow for a canine to play basketball. But Buddy's coach pointed out that there wasn't a rule prohibiting him from playing – which ultimately paved the way for the basketball-playing pooch to take the court.
Backers of the map, including Hanaway, embraced the comparison – while detractors used it to mock the redistricting gambit. She jokingly said on Tuesday to a reporter that "Air Bud rules."
She added, though, that the substance of the argument – that the lack of constitutional authorization is not necessarily a prohibition on legislative action – is an important principle.
"We presume that we can do a number of things in any regard unless it's been explicitly limited," Hanaway said. "And clearly it was not limited in the constitution to only once per decade. And I think that's right at the root of conservatism."
Hatfield used the analogy during arguments in front of Limbaugh, arguing that Missouri doesn't do "Air Bud rules." He said that Wilson's dissent is a "much more eloquent articulation of the Air Bud rule."
"The Air Bud rule clearly applies to congressional redistricting," Hatfield said. "I don't think that means it applies to every other question. "
This story has been updated, including comments from officials.
Copyright 2026 St. Louis Public Radio
