The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down an appeal from Missouri officials who wanted to use newly drawn congressional districts backed by former President Donald Trump in the upcoming November election. The decision is a setback for Republicans, who had hoped the new map would help them keep their narrow majority in the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court allowed a decision by Missouri’s highest court to remain in place, which ruled that the new districts were automatically paused due to a citizen petition seeking a statewide vote on the matter. The high court’s decision means that Missouri voters will likely use the same congressional map from two years ago in the upcoming election, not the one drawn by Republican lawmakers to potentially gain an additional House seat. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency cases in the 8th Circuit, including Missouri, denied a Republican-backed request to block the state Supreme Court’s ruling. He did not explain his decision or indicate whether the matter would be reviewed by the full court. Missouri officials could still seek help from another justice, but such requests are rarely granted. The new 2025 redistricting plan, which was part of a broader effort encouraged by Trump, aimed to remove one of Missouri’s two Democratic-held congressional seats, currently held by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. However, the Supreme Court’s decision means the 2022 map, with six Republican-held seats and two Democratic-held seats, will remain in effect. The legal battle began after the 2025 map was implemented. A group called People Not Politicians Missouri, led by Richard von Glahn, collected enough signatures to push for a referendum that would reject the legislature’s map and delay its use for the 2026 election. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, refused to put the measure on the ballot, arguing that redistricting plans cannot be overturned by voters. The Missouri Supreme Court later ruled that Hoskins should not have rejected the referendum, stating that state law does not exempt redistricting plans from the referendum process. The court found the petition to be "legal, sufficient, and timely." Under state law, any proposed ballot initiative that overrides the legislature is automatically put on hold until voters decide on it. The court also pointed out that any confusion was due to Hoskins’ delay in deciding the referendum’s fate. He waited until the last minute to reject the proposal before an August 4 deadline, deviating from the usual process.