The political roller coaster in Missouri showed no signs of easing. Shortly after the United States Supreme Court stayed Judge Clark’s ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court convened an emergency session to decide whether Secretary of State Denny Hoskins should be found in contempt. By that moment, with the high court staying Judge Clark’s decision, Hoskins was no longer bound by conflicting injunctions and agreed to implement the 2022 district maps. In the end, the court found that Hoskins had “purged himself” of contempt, resulting in no punishment.
Nevertheless, for roughly sixteen hours Hoskins faced two binding mandates. The Missouri Supreme Court commanded him to adopt the 2022 maps, while the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri mandated to use the 2026 maps. Which court’s order would prevail? Neither. Both were courts of competent jurisdiction issuing enforceable orders. One court did not outrank the other. In fact, clashes between the Missouri Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit could have raised the same dilemma. If forced to decide, Hoskins would have to choose which ruling to comply with, a choice that carried consequences. Compliance with the state court could expose him to contempt by Judge Clark; compliance with the federal court could expose him to contempt by the Missouri Supreme Court.
Under these highly unusual conditions, within a 48-hour window the Supreme Court opted not to disturb the state court’s ruling and stayed the federal court ruling, giving Hoskins a clear directive from above. Yet in ordinary times, similar dueling injunctions might persist for days, weeks, or longer.
This pattern echoed in Alabama during the same-sex marriage litigation. State probate judges issuing marriage licenses found themselves under conflicting directives from a federal judge in Mobile and from the Alabama Supreme Court. Ultimately, Obergefell resolved the dispute, but in the interim those judges had to assess which court might threaten them with contempt.
Howard Wasserman and I described these dynamics in our 2016 article:
While the days immediately following Obergefell were marked by scattered attempts by some probate judges to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples or to avoid issuing licenses at all, the now effective class injunction quickly ended those efforts by ensuring compliance without need for that additional step. A couple denied a license by a probate judge would not have to initiate a new lawsuit or obtain a new injunction. They instead could go directly to [Federal] Judge Granade for an order enforcing the existing injunction, with no further constitutional analysis required. The court would promptly order the probate judge to issue licenses under the terms of the injunction, with failure to comply sanctioned by civil contempt.
The Missouri Supreme Court probably should have waited until the Supreme Court ruled before it set oral argument for contempt proceedings. I hope cooler heads prevail in the Show-Me state. Things are a bit too hot right now.
