Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice W. Brent Powell questions an attorney for the state during a contempt hearing on Sept. 10, 2026 (Missouri Supreme Court).
Contempt was on the agenda — and palpably in the air — at the Missouri Supreme Court building in Jefferson City on Thursday as a contentious debate over congressional maps took several turns.
While the parties were waiting to approach the dais, the U.S. Supreme Court aimed to put a pin in the matter by staying a federal court order that directed the use of a GOP gerrymander devised in 2025.
But that ruling was by no means the end of the matter in the Show-Me State's highest court during a tumultuous late morning session.
The underlying dispute actually encompasses several different cases.
In May, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to the 2025 map — House Bill (HB-1) passed by state lawmakers at the behest of President Donald Trump to give Republicans a 7-1 edge.
The earlier case, Maggard v. State, left some issues hanging in the balance depending on the validity of a referendum petition that wanted the HB-1 map to go before voters.
But state officials went ahead with the HB-1 map while the validity of the referendum was being litigated, holding a primary election in August under the new boundaries. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, has since directed local election officials to use the HB-1 map in the upcoming midterm elections.
Earlier this month, however, in the case of von Glahn v. Hoskins, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled the referendum was valid. This finalized the upshot of Maggard to mean HB-1 was not valid.
"HB 1 is not the law and has never been the law," the court wrote. "There is only one valid congressional redistricting in effect—the congressional redistricting the General Assembly established in 2022."
But Hoskins and other Republicans have been adamant.
In yet a third case, GOP elected officials went to federal court in an effort to invalidate the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling.
Acting quickly, on Tuesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark of the Eastern District of Missouri issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effectively telling Hoskins to use the HB-1 map.
In turn, Hoskins sent local election officials an email that said Clark's order "takes precedence over the Missouri Supreme Court's order."
That directive teed up the Sept. 10 contempt proceedings requested by the plaintiff in the von Glahn case.
Describing the "fast-moving situation," Charles W. Hatfield, an attorney for von Glahn, first advised caution "in light of the stay" issued by the U.S. Supreme Court that nullified Clark's TRO.
Hatfield said it was clear the secretary of state understands he has to use the 2022 map but that contempt "is still an issue."
On contempt, Hatfield said Hoskins' behavior with regard to election officials and public statements put him in violation of the court's order. But on the map issue, Hatfield said: "I think we're done."
Those hopes were dashed when Hoskins' own lawyer — Missouri deputy solicitor general William Seidleck — addressed the court.
To hear Seidleck tell it, the secretary of state was between "a rock and a hard place" because of the federal lawsuit filed by third parties.
"He had to take an action," Seidleck said at one point. "Holding the secretary in contempt for his understanding of a federal court order would truly be extraordinary."
The judges were more concerned with the map issue.
"HB-1 never went into effect," Chief Justice W. Brent Powell repeatedly told Seidleck, trying to get the attorney to agree.
The lawyer repeatedly argued that "as a matter of state law" the 2025 map was not valid.
Various judges assiduously pressed Seidleck on Hoskins' next moves. Seidleck said Hoskins was "evaluating the situation."
"Is it his intention to conduct a second election with that map?" one judge asked. "I'm just trying to figure out what the long game is here."
Powell stressed Maggard meant HB-1 was never valid, said the state already had one election under an invalid map, and reiterated that federal law cannot change the fact that HB-1 never went into effect.
"This court's injunction is now controlling the situation," Seidleck eventually offered.
But neither the court nor the plaintiff were satisfied with what seemed like a drawn-out concession from the state.
"I don't see any options you didn't have the day we handed down von Glahn," another judge intoned. "I don't see what's different today. Our injunction has never not been in effect."
Seidleck responded that how compliance with the injunction "technically happens" is "what is being evaluated" by Hoskins.
At another point, a judge chastised the secretary of state for his reading of a ruling in the case by saying, "It's just English."
As Hatfield retook the dais, he appeared exasperated.
"I thought we were all gonna be adults here and do what the law requires," the plaintiff's attorney said. "I went to a state school but we have a reading problem here. The Secretary of State doesn't know how to read Maggard. The Secretary doesn't know how to read von Glahn."
To that end, Hatfield asked the court to "go around the secretary of state" and issue guidance to local election authorities directly.
As the proceedings drew to a close, Powell told Seidleck, "I would direct your client, the secretary of state, to not venture far from Jefferson City until this contempt motion is resolved."