# Missouri v. Department of Commerce *State of Missouri et al. v. United States Department of Commerce et al.*, No. 4:26-cv-131 (E.D. Mo.), before Judge John Ross. **Filed January 30, 2026; voluntarily dismissed without prejudice September 18, 2026; dismissal entered September 22, 2026.** ## The claim Missouri Attorney General [[Catherine Hanaway]] and three residents argued that counting people without lawful status and temporary-visa holders in the apportionment base violates § 2 of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] and the [[Administrative Procedure Act]]. They asked the court to declare the 2020 method unlawful, **order the 2020 apportionment redone**, and bar the practice for the [[2030 Census]]. The complaint asserted that Missouri would hold one more House seat under its method. ## The posture that made the case strange The relief Missouri wanted matched the administration's own stated position, and the defense side of the case behaved accordingly: - **Several groups of intervenors**, including the NAACP and Asian American and Latino advocacy organizations (OCA, LCLAA), joined between February and April 2026 to defend the count, because the federal government's defense could not be relied on. - On April 3 the court **denied** the plaintiffs' request for a three-judge panel. - The federal defendants moved to **stay** the case on June 26. The court denied that on July 22. They renewed the motion on September 17, with a September 21 deadline to answer the complaint approaching. ## Why Missouri dropped it The Commerce Department had meanwhile given Missouri most of what it was suing for. The [[2030 Census Residence Rule]] was published on September 10, 2026 and would count only citizens and lawful permanent residents for apportionment. Eight days later Missouri filed its dismissal. Hanaway's office said the rule "agrees with our understanding of the law and even cites our complaint," and that Missouri would now "focus on assisting the Trump Administration defend what we anticipate will soon be a final rule." The case shows a pattern the vault tracks elsewhere: litigation that works as a policy request, not a dispute. A friendly state sues the federal government and asks for the outcome the government wants. The government declines to fight hard. When the agency delivers by rule, the case goes away, and the fight moves to challengers of the rule, who will have to make their case against a comment record rather than a friendly lawsuit. The 2020 redo was never obtained. The dismissal was without prejudice, so Missouri can refile. ## See also - [[2030 Census Residence Rule]] · [[2030 Census]] · [[How the Census Apportions Congress]] · [[Census Citizenship Question]] - [[Catherine Hanaway]] · [[Trump v. New York]] · [[Franklin v. Massachusetts]] · [[Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929]]