The Supreme Court stepped in on Thursday and allowed Texas to move ahead with its newly drawn congressional map, a ruling that hands Republicans a significant political edge heading into the 2026 midterms and potentially delivers them up to five additional House seats.
Texas had asked the justices to freeze a three-judge district court ruling that struck down the map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The high court granted that request in an unsigned order, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to declare victory. “Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state,” he said. “This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.”
The Supreme Court suggested Texas is likely to prevail when the case returns for full review. According to the order, the state met the “traditional criteria for interim relief,” and the lower court committed “at least two serious errors” in tossing the map. The majority faulted the judges for refusing to apply the standard presumption that lawmakers act in “good faith,” insisting that ambiguous evidence was improperly construed “against the legislature.”
The justices also said that challengers should have faced a “dispositive or near-dispositive” adverse inference because they did not submit their own alternative map—one that would accomplish Texas’ stated partisan objectives without the racial characteristics they objected to.
Timing also carried enormous weight. With the candidate-filing deadline arriving on Sunday, the majority quoted earlier decisions warning that lower courts “should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” They concluded that the district court had “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign,” disrupting election processes and disturbing the “delicate federal-state balance in elections.” The ruling keeps the Texas map intact for 2026 as long as the state promptly files its appeal.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, issued a separate opinion asserting that partisan strategy—not race—was the true motivation behind the Texas plan. He wrote that it is “indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” He added that the usual “clear-error” deference did not apply because the district court “based its findings upon a mistaken impression of applicable legal principles.”
Alito argued that because political affiliation and racial demographics often correlate, racial-gerrymander claims can “easily” be weaponized “for partisan ends.” As a result, he said challengers must “disentangle race and politics” by offering an alternative map that produces the same partisan balance. Since the plaintiffs’ experts never did that, he concluded the record supported a “strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race.”
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a blistering dissent. She maintained that the three-judge panel had done “everything one could ask” to resolve the dispute and accused the majority of discarding the rigorous “clear-error” standard in favor of a rushed review “based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.” She warned that the ruling “guarantees that Texas’s new map, with all its enhanced partisan advantage, will govern next year’s elections” and “disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.”
Texas House Democrats blasted the decision on X, writing that “the Supreme Court failed Texas voters today, and they failed American democracy. Every Texan who testified against these maps should be angry. Every community that fought for generations to build political power and watched Republicans gerrymander it away should be angry. Democrats will continue to fight.”
Across the country, the ruling is intensifying an already heated redistricting fight. President Donald Trump has urged GOP-led states to redraw maps mid-decade to secure the party’s House majority heading into 2026. Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Utah have responded with newly approved maps, collectively positioning Republicans to gain as many as nine seats.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders in Florida and Indiana have launched redistricting discussions or special sessions, though internal disagreements and legal uncertainties have stalled final action.
Democrat-led states are maneuvering in response. California voters approved a constitutional amendment championed by Democrat leadership that temporarily sidelines the state’s independent redistricting commission and replaces its map with one expected to generate roughly five additional Democratic seats. In Virginia and Maryland, officials are exploring ways to circumvent or influence their own independent bodies as they consider maps that could add to their party’s tally, though those efforts remain early-stage and likely headed toward legal challenges.
The Texas ruling signals that the coming national battle over congressional districts is far from over—and that the Supreme Court is poised to play a decisive role in shaping the next electoral map of the United States.
{Matzav.com}