WASHINGTON – Texas can use a congressional map drawn to give President Donald Trump and Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections, the Supreme Court said Dec. 4 in a decision that may help the GOP keep control of the U.S. House.
An ideologically divided court paused a lower court’s ruling that the map likely discriminates against racial minorities by diluting the voting power of Hispanic and Black Texans.
That opinion, which replaces a temporary freeze on the ruling issued by Justice Samuel Alito on Nov. 21, keeps the map in place for the midterm elections as litigation over the boundaries continues.
The court said the order blocking the map from being used next year was improper because it came too close to the election.
“The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the majority wrote in a brief, unsigned opinion.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
Texas started redistricting push
At the urging of the Trump administration, the GOP-controlled Texas legislature drew new district lines midway through the usual 10-year redistricting cycle, setting off a race among states to get in the game. Some of those other efforts are also being challenged in court.
Despite the uncertainty about what the playing field will look like, Democrats remain favored to flip the House next year, according to nonpartisan handicappers at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
That could change, however, if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in a pending case from Louisiana that could open the door to more redistricting attempts in southern states. Depending on what the court says and how quickly the justices rule, Republicans could create multiple districts they’d be expected to win, analyst Kyle Kondik estimates.
The new Texas map was designed to help Republicans win five more seats, although that’s not a sure thing.
Republicans currently hold 25 of the state’s 38 seats in the U.S. House, where they have a slim majority. If Democrats seize control, they can block Trump’s legislative agenda and launch investigations into his administration.
Racial gerrymandering?
In redistricting battles, the Supreme Court has said federal courts can review whether race was improperly used to draw new lines, but not whether partisan politics was a factor.
Civil rights groups and others challenging Texas’ new map argue it has fewer districts where Hispanic and Black voters together make up the majority, diminishing their voting power.
“This is as stark a case of racial gerrymandering as one can imagine,” lawyers for some of the challengers said in a filing.
A three-judge panel in Texas that reviewed the map ruled 2-1 that Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott directed the legislature to use race to redraw the lines following a demand from the Trump administration that discussed the racial makeup of some districts.
“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” Judge Jeffrey Brown, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, wrote. “Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
In an irate and unusually personal dissent, Judge Jerry Smith – who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan – called the decision “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.”
Texas says race wasn’t main factor
Texas’ attorneys told the Supreme Court that partisanship – not race – drove the redistricting. And the lower court’s ruling has caused chaos because candidates have already gathered signatures and filed applications to run in the new districts, they argued.
Weighing in on behalf of Texas, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the lower court “misconstrued” the direction the administration gave the state.
“Indeed, the record here affirmatively shows that the 2025 map was drawn in a race-blind manner,” the Justice Department wrote in a filing.
The civil rights groups and voters challenging the map said the lower court’s decision was based on a nine-day hearing that included dozens of witnesses and hours of footage of legislators and Abbott discussing their motives.
The challengers also said the impending December 8 filing deadline for Texas candidates running in the spring primary is not a reason to allow the new map to be used.
Texas created its own emergency by unnecessarily choosing to create new maps, they told the Supreme Court, and “can’t insulate unconstitutional conduct from judicial review by deliberately timing that conduct close to an election.”
