Supreme Court Clears Texas Map, Empowering Partisan Redistricting in California and Beyond

Supreme Court Decision Raises Stakes In Nationwide Redistricting Battle

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a new Texas congressional map to remain in place, a move that could help Republicans gain roughly five additional U.S. House seats. The high court stayed a lower court’s injunction that had found the map likely unconstitutional because race was a predominant factor in drawing some districts.

The Court's short order said the district court “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith,” and thus blocked the lower court’s effort to enjoin the map. In a separate concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito — joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — explicitly compared the Texas redraw to California’s, calling the motivation behind both maps “partisan advantage pure and simple.”

What The Ruling Means

The decision is likely to influence redistricting fights across the country. Legal analysts say the Court’s language and the stay could complicate the U.S. Department of Justice’s pending challenge to California’s map, which critics say could produce up to five new Democratic-leaning seats. A federal district court hearing on California’s map is scheduled for Dec. 15.

“It was indisputable the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” — Justice Samuel Alito (concurrence)

Reactions And Political Fallout

The ruling prompted immediate public back-and-forth. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the decision on X, saying it affirmed that federal courts should not interfere with partisan mapmaking. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office responded with skepticism, and the Justice Department’s account warned it would continue its challenge.

Legal experts offered more measured takes. Derek Muller, an election-law professor at Notre Dame, said the ruling makes the DOJ’s case in California “an uphill battle,” noting the Court’s unusual reference to a separate state’s map. Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School cautioned that politics and public messaging cannot substitute for legal arguments: “You can’t actually win a case through marketing. The courts aren’t doing TikTok.”

Where Redistricting Is Headed

The Texas ruling arrives amid an intensifying, nationwide contest over congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. Republican-controlled legislatures have enacted new GOP-friendly maps in states including North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri. Indiana’s House approved a map that would favor Republicans in all nine districts, though its fate in the state Senate remains uncertain.

Democrats are also pursuing aggressive mapmaking in states they control. Virginia — where Democrats will control the governorship and both legislative chambers next year — is frequently cited as a state with the potential for significant Democratic gains. National Democratic organizers, including the National Democratic Redistricting Committee’s Marina Jenkins, warned that Democrats cannot rely on the courts alone and must mobilize politically and legally at the state level.

Bottom Line

By staying the lower court’s injunction in Texas, the Supreme Court has added momentum to partisan redistricting efforts on both sides. The ruling complicates the Department of Justice’s challenge in California and is likely to shape legal strategy and political organizing as states finalize maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.