Opponents of Missouri’s 2025 congressional map asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a third time in September to block its use in the Nov. 3 midterms, filing an emergency application late Tuesday night under docket No. 26A388.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters from the 8th Circuit, directed the state and map supporters to respond by 2 p.m. EDT Wednesday. The Court’s public docket shows that by that deadline Respondents Robert Onder and others, and separately the State of Missouri and Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, submitted opposition briefs. Amicus briefs were also entered. As of this writing, the docket lists no order disposing of the application.

In their filing, People Not Politicians and Richard von Glahn asked the Court either to clarify that its Sept. 10 stay of a district-court temporary restraining order still bars enforcement of a replacement permanent injunction, or to stay that permanent order. They wrote that the Eighth Circuit “cannot nullify this Court’s stay by replacing the stayed injunction with a new injunction granting identical relief,” and that ballots under the 2022 map “have been printed and mailed” with absentee voting underway.

The procedural path is dense. On Sept. 3, the Missouri Supreme Court held that House Bill 1 — the 2025 map — could not be used for the general election unless approved by voters at a referendum. Kavanaugh denied Secretary Hoskins’s bid to stay that state ruling on Sept. 8 (No. 26A304). U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark then entered a TRO requiring the 2025 map. On Sept. 10, the Supreme Court stayed Clark’s TRO pending appeal and any timely certiorari petition (No. 26A326).

On Monday, an Eighth Circuit panel ruled that using a different map in November than in the August primary would violate the Constitution, directed entry of a permanent injunction requiring the 2025 map, and administratively stayed that injunction until 5 p.m. CDT Sept. 28 to allow Supreme Court review. The district court then entered an amended permanent injunction. Applicants returned to the justices that night.

Onder’s opposition brief argues applicants lack Article III standing, that the dispute will be moot before certiorari could be decided, and that the application should be denied. Missouri’s opposition asks the Court to deny the stay, arguing among other points that applicants are unlikely to succeed on the merits and that equities favor leaving the Eighth Circuit’s framework in place. Neither brief constitutes a ruling by the Court.

County election clerks and applicants have told courts that ballot printing and overseas-military mailing deadlines make a late switch to the 2025 map impractical; Missouri’s brief contends the state can still administer the 2025 map if required and that a new stay would add further map changes. The Event Record has not independently verified ballot production status beyond what parties filed and outlets summarized.