Texas asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal trial court concluded the state's new congressional map likely amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Shortly after the emergency appeal was filed, Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary administrative stay of the lower-court order that had barred Texas from using the map. That stay pauses the injunction while the full court decides whether to hear the case.
The dispute centers on a July letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that urged changes to the racial composition of four Texas congressional districts. In a strongly worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown concluded the state’s focus on race likely violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and enjoined the map.
Why the case matters
At stake are seats that could determine control of the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms. The trial court found the new map could flip five Democratic-held seats to Republican control. House Republicans currently hold a narrow three-seat majority, so these changes could have a significant national impact.
Timing and procedural urgency
Texas told the Supreme Court the lower-court ruling created “chaos” in election preparations: candidates had already begun campaigning, gathered signatures and filed to appear on the ballot under the new map. The state asked the court to block the injunction by Dec. 1 and to expedite review on the merits. Candidates in Texas must declare by Dec. 8, and the state's primary is scheduled for March 3, 2026—deadlines that add urgency to the court's decision.
Alito set a tight response deadline for the challengers and is expected to refer the emergency filing to the full court. His administrative stay will remain in effect only until the nine justices decide whether to take the case and potentially issue a longer-lasting order.
Legal arguments
Texas argues the map was drawn for partisan reasons, not racial ones. The state and its attorney general, Ken Paxton, contend the Legislature was pursuing ordinary political objectives: increasing Republican representation in Congress. If the map's rationale were strictly partisan, courts have been reluctant to intervene in such disputes after a 2019 decision that identified partisan gerrymandering as a political question outside federal courts’ reach.
But the trial court found evidence indicating race, not politics, predominated in the redistricting process—citing the DOJ letter and statements tied to the governor’s special legislative session. Judge Brown wrote that the governor’s actions effectively directed the legislature to redraw districts based on race. Supreme Court precedent allows consideration of race in redistricting but forbids race from being the predominant factor.
Lower-court split and dissent
The three-judge federal panel was split 2-1. An Obama appointee joined Judge Brown in the majority; a Reagan appointee dissented. U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith issued a separate scathing dissent accusing the majority of legal and factual errors and procedural abuse.
Broader context
This dispute is part of a broader wave of litigation over mid-decade redistricting. The Justice Department has also sued California over maps challengers say advantage Democrats, and the Supreme Court is reviewing a separate case from Louisiana about creating a second Black-majority congressional district—potentially affecting how courts and civil-rights groups apply the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
What could happen next
The Supreme Court must decide quickly whether to lift the lower-court injunction or leave it in place. The justices have precedent cautioning against last-minute judicial changes to election rules (a 2006 decision), a principle Texas emphasized in its emergency filing. If the court applies that principle, it could allow the redrawn map to stand for the upcoming filing and primary deadlines; if not, Texas would revert to its post-2020 map while litigation continues.
It remains unclear how fast the high court will act. Earlier this year, in non-argued emergency matters, the Court has on average taken about three weeks to resolve similar petitions—but schedules and outcomes vary.
Key facts: The temporary stay preserves the new map while the Supreme Court considers the emergency appeal; the lower court ruled the map likely violates the 14th Amendment by prioritizing race; Texas seeks an expedited review amid looming candidate-filing and primary deadlines.
