The US Supreme Court on Monday removed a New York trial court order to redraw a congressional district, which would have bolstered minority-resident voting power before midterm elections in November.

The court’s brief order was accompanied by a concurring opinion from Justice Samuel Alito as well as a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Alito wrote:

[This case] concerns a state-court order that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race… [It] is unadorned racial discrimination, an inherently “odious” activity that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause except in the “most extraordinary case.”

Acknowledging constitutional issues, the concurring and dissenting opinions primarily focused on jurisdictional questions. In state cases that involve federal questions, justices can generally only hear “final judgments or decrees” from a state’s highest court, and the court may grant stays if doing so is “necessary or appropriate in aid” of its jurisdiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court refrains from “tinkering” with voting rules before an election.

Staten Island Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R) requested the Supreme Court to stay the trial court order following simultaneous appeals to New York’s highest court—the Court of Appeals—and the state’s intermediate appellate court. The Court of Appeals first denied hearing the case on grounds that the state’s intermediate appellate court must first rule on the request. Following this denial, Malliotakis appealed to the Supreme Court. While waiting for a response from the Supreme Court, the state’s intermediate appellate court denied Malliotakis’ request. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the request without the case having first gone before the Court of Appeals.

Justice Alito reasoned that because New York’s highest court denied the request, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the injunction. He contended that the state appeals process will likely continue up until midterm elections. By hearing the case early, the court could avoid “tinkering” too close to the elections while addressing a perceived constitutional violation.

Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority’s holding, arguing that the court overstepped jurisdictional bounds:

Today, the Court takes the astonishing, unexplained step of staying a state trial court’s order before the state high court has had a chance to weigh in… [T]he majority had to conclude that…the equities favor granting this relief despite repeated admonitions to proceed cautiously when intervening in state elections or court proceedings… Here, there is no final decision from any state court, let alone New York’s highest court, on any federal question.

A New York trial court ordered the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw New York’s 11th District on January 21, which includes Staten Island and southwest Brooklyn. Boundaries were drawn in 1980 when its demographics were “85.3 percent white, 7 percent Black, 5.4 percent Latino, and 1.9 percent Asian.” Today, residents are “56.6 percent white, 19.5 percent Latino, 9 percent Black, and 12 percent Asian, with the remaining 2.9 percent largely comprised of people…of two or more races.”

Plaintiffs argued that shifting demographics had led to “vote dilution,” which occurs when a minority bloc of voters is sufficiently large and politically cohesive to elect a representative, but a white majority bloc operates so as to usually defeat minority voters’ preferred candidates. The trial court found that vote dilution violated Article III Section 4(c)(1) of the New York Constitution, which mandates districts to be drawn so that minority groups “do not have less opportunity to participate in the political process than other members of the electorate.” The trial court ordered a new map and enjoined use of the current map, considering the sizable minority and majority voting blocs that often voted for opposing candidates and the history of racial polarization and discrimination in the district.