Virginia Democrats have filed a long shot emergency application asking SCOTUS to stay the Virginia Supreme Court's decis

[In It to Win It]

Mark Joseph Stern
‪@mjsdc.bsky.social‬

Virginia Democrats have filed a long shot emergency application asking SCOTUS to stay the Virginia Supreme Court's decision against the new, voter-approved congressional map. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28113281-25a-application-for-stay/

Virginia Democrats want SCOTUS to restore the 10-1 congressional map that voters approved in April.

I think the VA Supreme Court decision was atrociously wrong, but it was clearly rooted in state law. SCOTUS doesn't have strong grounds to intervene in this dispute—there's no federal question.

I'm also nervous about setting a precedent whereby SCOTUS can overrule state courts' interpretation of state redistricting law. In the long run, this expansion of SCOTUS' authority would benefit Republicans over Democrats and give the conservative supermajority more power to help the GOP rig maps.

Virginia Democrats have filed a long shot emergency application asking SCOTUS to stay the Virginia Supreme Court's decision against the new, voter-approved congressional map. www.documentcloud.org/documents/28...

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-05-11T19:49:22.652Z

[rampartd]

1. more than even chance that supremes don't hear this until after election

unless they really want to screw us.

[markpkessinger]

5. I don't think you understand . . .

. . . we are screwed if they wait until after the election to hear this. This isn't an appeal of the Virginia Supreme Court's decision -- it's a request of the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a stay of the Virginia Supreme Court's decision. If they choose not to grant it, or don't respond to the filing until after the election, that means the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling, which set aside the voter-approved map, goes into effect. That's where we would be screwed!

[rampartd]

7. we are screwed either way.

taking it now, on the shadow docket, cements the stay in place.

delay leaves the stay in place until, in the fullness of time, they can permanently block the redistricting.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. SCOTUS conservatives will make GOP bank on every thing Dems file

But I suppose this will expose their methods for all to see

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Completely the wrong strategy

The legislature has within their power the ability to forcibly retire the entire VASC by passing a law setting an arbitrary retirement age (set to the age of the youngest Justice who voted to block the redistricting, which is 54), and making it take effect immediately. The legislature could then change the law back and appoint a new court, rehiring the liberals if they chose to.

I didn’t just make this up, it’s a strategy actually being circulated by several legal experts.

[orangecrush]

6. They won't do it

Because, you know, if we do the repugs might do something underhanded to US!

[MichMan]

12. Seems like that would violate both Virginia and Federal age discrimination laws

Chapter 39. Virginia Human Rights Act.

B. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:

1. An employer to:

a. Fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to such individual's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions including lactation, age, military status, disability, or ethnic or national origin; or

b. Limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect an individual's status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions including lactation, age, military status, disability, or ethnic or national origin.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title2.2/chapter39/

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. They already have a mandatory retirement age of 73

Which I presume is legal.

The law you quoted says “refuse to hire or discharge”; discharge is not the same as mandatory retirement, especially if that mandatory retirement comes with all the benefits retirees are entitled to.

Like I said, I didn’t just make it up, there are a number of legal experts discussing this strategy.

If I can find any of the sources I encountered, I will post links.

I think one of the sources may have been someone at the Lawfare blog - they know their stuff.

[MichMan]

14. For every legal argument there are always experts (on each side) that believe they are right

Regardless of whose side wins in court, half of them end up being wrong.

[Raven123]

4. The only reason to do this as I see it is to get SCOTUS on record

If that’s possible. We assume the VA Supreme Court is the final arbiter, but this SCOTUS has earned a reputation for extremism. Might help to know how extreme.

[Boo1]

8. Dems have the 'will of the people'

Leak the potential for force retiring the court and then file a motion for them to reconsider based on them misunderstanding what constitures an election. If they dont then follow through.

[WarGamer]

9. yeah that's gonna happen.

[Takket]

10. Complete waste of time.......

The same SCOTUS that just told Alabama to go ahead and redraw its maps? The same SCOTUS that keeps green lighting drumpf with the shadow docket abuse?

I'm willing to bet they will just say "uh.... we need to review the merits of this and we'll decide in two years".......... they only move fast when they need a way to help drumpf with no explanation to the lower courts..........

This is absolutely outrageous. SCOTUS reinstated Texas gerrymander 15 weeks before primary because they claimed it was too close to election to block it but now allowing Alabama to gerrymander one week before primary after trial court found map was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters

— Ari Berman (@ariberman.bsky.social) 2026-05-11T23:00:42.315Z

[Oldvet]

11. Sadly, this is doa imo

Even looking at the argument, the Virginia attorney posted this simply is not in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

Probably a quick 9-0 8-1 or maybe 7-2 shoot down.