The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a Texas federal court ruling that struck down a GOP-drawn congressional map as likely racially gerrymandered and ordered a return to 2021 lines. With a Dec. 8 candidate-filing deadline, the appeals process is compressed and the court may be forced to act quickly. Justices will weigh both the racial-gerrymandering claims and whether courts should alter election rules close to an election under the Purcell principle. The decision could affect control of the House and broader Voting Rights Act questions now before the court.
Supreme Court Faces High-Stakes Texas Redistricting Fight That Could Shape the Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a Texas federal court ruling that struck down a GOP-drawn congressional map as likely racially gerrymandered and ordered a return to 2021 lines. With a Dec. 8 candidate-filing deadline, the appeals process is compressed and the court may be forced to act quickly. Justices will weigh both the racial-gerrymandering claims and whether courts should alter election rules close to an election under the Purcell principle. The decision could affect control of the House and broader Voting Rights Act questions now before the court.
09:11 PM, 11/19/2025Politics
Control of the U.S. House — and the prospects for President Donald Trump’s agenda in a potential second term — may turn on an urgent legal battle now at the Supreme Court’s doorstep. This week, a federal panel in Texas struck down the state’s newly drawn congressional map as likely a racial gerrymander and ordered a return to the 2021 boundaries. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, compressing the timeline ahead of the Dec. 8 candidate-filing deadline.
What the lower court decided
A divided three-judge panel found that the map adopted by the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature in August — after an entreaty from the Justice Department and at the urging of President Trump — likely diluted minority voting power in several districts. The 160-page majority opinion, authored by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, concluded the redistricting plan cannot be used for the upcoming midterm and restored the prior congressional lines.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Brown quoted from Chief Justice John Roberts and argued the evidence pointed to racial considerations in the state's redrawing.
What the Supreme Court will weigh
Justices will confront two central legal questions: whether the lower court correctly found racial motivation or effect in the mapmaking, and whether federal courts should intervene in election rules so close to candidate filing and voting. The latter issue implicates the Purcell principle, which counsels judicial restraint on changing election procedures as elections approach.
Judge Brown addressed Purcell at length, arguing the Supreme Court has provided inconsistent guidance on how late is too late to alter voting rules. He acknowledged the reality that the high court has often granted stays in election-related disputes, but he also emphasized the potential constitutional harms he found in the 2025 map.
Broader legal landscape
The Texas dispute is one of several redistricting fights arising from mid-decade map changes. Challenges are also pending over GOP maps in Missouri and North Carolina and Democratic maps in California. Appeals in redistricting cases move directly to the Supreme Court, so the high court may soon face multiple, interconnected questions about race, the Voting Rights Act and the timing of judicial intervention.
The justices are already revisiting major voting-rights questions in consolidated cases involving Louisiana’s congressional maps. Over the summer the court expanded the legal issues in the Louisiana matters in ways that could narrow how states design districts under the Voting Rights Act—adding another layer of complexity to the court’s docket.
Political stakes and timing
The practical stakes are immediate: Texas candidates must file by Dec. 8, and some hopefuls have begun campaigning under the new map. Restoring the August plan could help Republicans protect several seats, but it would not guarantee GOP control; historically the president’s party often loses ground in the midterms, and Democrats have shown strength in recent off-year contests.
Legal experts say the court may have little choice but to act. "I think it was inevitable when Trump started the redistricting," said Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA. Brad Smith, a law professor and former FEC chair, warned that even a minimalist approach by the court — allowing the lower-court decision to proceed through the system — risks public criticism and prolonged uncertainty.
What to watch next
The Supreme Court’s schedule for deciding the Texas emergency appeal is uncertain, as are the outcomes of the related cases now looming on its docket. Any ruling could influence the composition of the House and reshape how courts approach last-minute changes to election rules and Voting Rights Act compliance.
Key dates: Texas congressional candidate filing deadline — Dec. 8. Expect expedited briefs and possible emergency action from the high court in the weeks that follow.