Listen to the article
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Texas Republicans to proceed with a congressional redistricting plan that favors the GOP, despite a lower court ruling that the map likely discriminates on racial grounds. The high court’s decision means next year’s elections will be held using the controversial map, which was advocated by former President Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court, with conservative justices forming the majority, granted Texas’ emergency request for intervention, citing the imminent electoral timeline with primaries scheduled for March. Their unsigned statement questioned the lower court’s finding that race played a significant role in the new map, suggesting instead that Texas lawmakers had “avowedly partisan goals.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the three liberal dissenters, criticized the decision, stating it “ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”
Election law expert Richard Hasen from UCLA characterized the ruling as “a green light for there to be even more re-redistricting, and a strong message to lower courts to butt out.”
The Texas redistricting effort represents a crucial battleground in the nationwide struggle for congressional control. Enacted last summer at Trump’s urging, the map was specifically designed to give Republicans five additional House seats, potentially securing the party a slim majority in the 2026 elections.
This redistricting battle extends beyond Texas. Missouri and North Carolina have also redrawn maps to add Republican seats, while California voters approved a ballot initiative giving Democrats an additional five seats. These redrawn maps face ongoing legal challenges in California and Missouri, though North Carolina’s new map has been cleared for use in the 2026 elections.
The three-judge panel that originally blocked the Texas map found that it likely diluted the political power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the Constitution. U.S. District Judges Jeffrey V. Brown and David Guaderrama acknowledged politics played a role but concluded that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
Their ruling prompted a scathing dissent from Judge Jerry Smith, who accused Brown of “pernicious judicial misbehavior” and disparaged the majority opinion as worthy of a “Nobel Prize for Fiction.”
Texas officials celebrated the Supreme Court’s intervention. Attorney General Ken Paxton said the order “defended Texas’s fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans,” calling the redistricting law “the Big Beautiful Map.” Governor Greg Abbott was more succinct: “We won! Texas is officially — and legally — more red.”
Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin condemned the decision as “wrong — both morally and legally,” accusing the Supreme Court of giving Trump “exactly what he wanted: a rigged map to help Republicans avoid accountability in the midterms.”
The contentious redistricting eliminated five of Texas’s nine “coalition” districts, where no minority group holds a majority but together they outnumber non-Hispanic white voters. The total number of congressional districts where minorities constitute a majority of voting-age citizens decreased from 16 to 14.
Republicans argue the new map actually benefits minority voters by creating an eighth Hispanic-majority district and two Black-majority districts where previously there were none. Critics counter that these majorities are so slim that white voters, who historically have higher turnout rates, will effectively control election outcomes.
The Supreme Court’s order puts the lower court ruling on hold at least until the high court issues a final decision in the case. Meanwhile, the justices are separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further restrict race-based districts under the Voting Rights Act, potentially affecting the current round of redistricting nationwide.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between partisan redistricting goals and constitutional protections against racial discrimination in electoral maps, a conflict that continues to shape America’s democratic landscape.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have significant implications for the political landscape in Texas. I hope the new congressional map will be closely monitored to ensure it doesn’t disenfranchise minority voters.
Redistricting is a complex and often controversial process. While I understand the desire for stable electoral districts, I’m concerned about the potential for partisan gerrymandering in this case.
This ruling raises important questions about the role of the courts in safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system. I’ll be following this story closely to see how it unfolds and what the long-term implications may be.
Redistricting is always a delicate balancing act, but I’m troubled by the concerns raised about potential racial discrimination in the new Texas congressional map. Fairness and representation should be the top priorities.
The Supreme Court’s decision is certainly controversial, with concerns raised about potential racial discrimination in the new congressional map. I’ll be following this story closely to see how it unfolds.
It’s important that redistricting be done in a transparent and impartial way, regardless of party affiliation. Hopefully the courts will closely scrutinize the maps to ensure fairness.
This ruling seems to prioritize partisan interests over the principles of fair representation. I’m concerned about the implications for voter rights and the integrity of the democratic process in Texas.
While I understand the desire for stable electoral districts, the concerns raised about racial discrimination in the new maps are very troubling. I hope this issue receives further judicial review.
Interesting to see the Supreme Court allowing Texas to use a congressional map that appears to favor Republicans. While district boundaries are often politically charged, I hope the final maps are fair and representative of the diverse state population.
Redistricting can be a complex and contentious process. I’m curious to see how this plays out and whether the new maps will withstand legal challenges.
It’s disappointing to see the Supreme Court allow a congressional map that may unfairly advantage one political party. Redistricting should be a fair and impartial process, not a tool for partisan gain.
I’m curious to learn more about the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision and whether the lower court’s findings of potential racial discrimination will be adequately addressed.