How Supreme Court rulings have shaped the 2026 US midterm elections

Mixed · 2Supreme Court decisions over the past year have shaped the 2026 midterms, from the congressional maps in use to how much parties can spend with candidates. 1 2 Mixed · 2In April, in Louisiana v. Callais, the court ruled 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, that Louisiana's creation of a second Black-majority district was unconstitutional. It narrowed the Voting Rights Act's demands for race-based line-drawing. 1 2 Centre · 1The Wall Street Journal, in copy carried by Hindustan Times, says Callais let Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee dismantle House districts where Black voters held a majority or near-majority. It says Republicans are favoured to flip all three seats and that other Southern states may follow by 2028. 2

Right · 1The Washington Examiner lists four states that redrew maps right after the ruling. Louisiana and Alabama each removed one of two Black-majority districts, Tennessee broke up its lone Democratic district, and Florida redrew several parts of its map to try to tilt four seats toward Republicans. It says emergency-docket lawsuits against these maps were halted, so the new maps took effect. 1 Centre · 1The wave of mid-decade redistricting also builds on the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause ruling, which said federal courts have no role in policing partisan gerrymandering. The WSJ says Republican-controlled states, prodded by President Trump, led the effort, but a Democratic counter-effort in California is expected to offset much of the potential Republican gain. 2 Right · 1The Examiner says the court also let both California's Democratic-leaning map and Texas's Republican-leaning map take effect. It says the court declined to intervene in May after the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved map that would have gained Democrats up to four seats. 1

Centre · 1In June, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the court struck down federal caps on coordinated party spending with candidates, on First Amendment grounds. AdImpact says the parties have since put more than $100 million into coordinated TV ads. 2 Centre · 1The WSJ gives Senate examples. In Ohio, where the cap would have been $1.2 million per party, the Republican Senate committee spent $23 million with Jon Husted and the Democratic committee $5.7 million with Sherrod Brown through September. In Michigan, where the cap would have been $1.1 million, Republicans spent $13.4 million with Mike Rogers and Democrats $4.6 million with Abdul El-Sayed. 2 Right · 1The Examiner says the spending ruling is beneficial to both parties but was widely viewed as an immediate Republican win, because Republicans have a party-level cash advantage while Democratic candidates have out-raised Republican candidates individually. It adds that the court twice left in place an FCC rule giving parties and joint fundraising committees the lower TV ad rates usually reserved for candidates, and deferred the challenge until after the election. 1

Mixed · 2Not every ruling favoured Republicans. In June, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court ruled 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that a Mississippi law counting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to five days later is not preempted by federal law. The Examiner says a different outcome would likely have affected similar laws in 14 states. 1 2 Mixed · 2In September the court rejected the Trump administration's emergency petition to lift a block on a Postal Service rule that would have set new requirements for mail ballots, such as Election Mail markings and barcoded envelopes. The rule will not apply this November but could be implemented later if the administration wins on the merits. 1 2 Mixed · 2On Missouri, the WSJ says the court stopped a long-shot effort to install a pro-Republican map. The Examiner says it declined to overturn a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that forced a referendum on a new map that would have netted Republicans a seat. 2 1

Centre · 1Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented in the spending case, said at Catholic University's law school that Americans see "all this money chasing all these political candidates" as "a nightmare". She also criticised polarised rulings that make it easier for states to redraw districts for political gain. Drexel law professor Tabatha Abu El-Haj said the court's language has moved partisan gerrymandering "from a fact of politics to a legitimate constitutional interest". 2 Centre · 1Litigation is still going on. The WSJ reports that the Trump administration is trying to block California from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it says may not be citizens. It also sued on Friday to prevent certification of Alaska's Senate results if the Republican candidate loses. Any post-election challenges after 3 November might have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. 2 Right · 1The Examiner says the court has no pending emergency election petitions. Its next election case, RNC v. Mi Familia Vota on Arizona voter registration forms, will be argued in December, with a ruling expected by the end of June 2027. It describes Democrats as favoured to flip the House and Senate and notes that a Democratic Senate would complicate any Trump Supreme Court nomination in his last two years. 1