Catherine L. Hanaway

Editorial classification: ExtremismLedger includes Hanaway under Editorial Policy §0(4) based on her documented use of the attorney general’s office in efforts to prevent or reverse Missouri voters’ referendum process for the 2025 congressional map. The underlying court holdings, legal arguments, public statements, and later federal emergency orders are distinguished in the supporting claims and sources.

• Richard von Glahn v. Denny Hoskins, No. SC101805 — opinion — Supreme Court of Missouri (09/03/2026) [Primary]
• Hoskins v. von Glahn, No. 26A304 — Appendix Volume 1 — Supreme Court of the United States (09/04/2026) [Primary]
• People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A326 — application appendix — Supreme Court of the United States (09/09/2026) [Primary]

Hanaway’s office represented Hoskins in the emergency application in Hoskins v. von Glahn, No. 26A304, seeking a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court’s September 3 injunction; Justice Kavanaugh denied the application on September 8 without merits reasoning.

• Hoskins v. von Glahn, No. 26A304 — Appendix Volume 1 — Supreme Court of the United States (09/04/2026) [Primary]
• People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A326 — order staying federal temporary restraining order — Supreme Court of the United States (09/10/2026) [Primary]
• Hoskins v. von Glahn, No. 26A304 — docket — Supreme Court of the United States [Primary]

Following the September 8 federal temporary restraining order in Onder v. Missouri, Hanaway stated that Missouri was prepared to comply with what she described as an order binding the state to use the Missouri First (HB 1) map for the November general election.

• People Not Politicians v. Onder, No. 26A326 — application appendix — Supreme Court of the United States (09/09/2026) [Primary]

In the subsequent federal Onder litigation, Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi, acting for the state defendants through Hanaway’s office, argued that the Missouri Supreme Court’s treatment of HB 1 as never having taken effect was a “legal fiction,” as reported from the filing.

• Missouri Attorney General trashes legal fiction of Missouri Supreme Court’s map ruling — KCUR / Missouri Independent (09/07/2026) [Corroborating]

After the September 3, 2026 decision in von Glahn v. Hoskins, Hanaway stated that the decision had created a “full-fledged constitutional crisis,” said it would disenfranchise Missouri voters, and announced that her office would immediately seek relief from the Supreme Court of the United States.

• Missouri Attorney General Hanaway Issues Statement Following Missouri Supreme Court Decision on Congressional Maps — Attorney General Office of Missouri (09/03/2026) [Primary]

The State’s September 2026 emergency application states that Hoskins’ August 4 Certificate of Insufficiency incorporated an Attorney General opinion that more fully articulated the grounds for rejecting referendum petition 2026-R004, including the position that Missouri’s Constitution did not authorize a referendum on legislatively enacted congressional districts.

• Hoskins v. von Glahn, No. 26A304 — Appendix Volume 1 — Supreme Court of the United States (09/04/2026) [Primary]

On October 15, 2025, Hanaway announced that her office, representing the State of Missouri, the Missouri General Assembly, and Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, had filed federal litigation seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent a referendum on the 2025 congressional-redistricting plan from proceeding.

• Attorney General Hanaway Fights Out-of-State Dark-Money Groups Attempting To Hijack Missouri’s Constitutional Authority — Attorney General Office of Missouri (10/15/2025) [Primary]

10/15/2025

• Attorney General Hanaway Fights Out-of-State Dark-Money Groups Attempting To Hijack Missouri’s Constitutional Authority — Attorney General Office of Missouri (10/15/2025) [Primary]
• Hoskins v. von Glahn, No. 26A304 — Appendix Volume 1 — Supreme Court of the United States (09/04/2026) [Primary]