Kagan’s 16-Page Dissent: Why the Supreme Court’s Stay of Texas Redistricting Raises Major Legal and Democratic Concerns

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay a federal district court’s order invalidating Texas’ newly drawn congressional maps has intensified concerns about the Court’s perceived partisanship and its approach to election law. In a forceful 16-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the conservative 6-3 majority ignored controlling precedent, substantial trial evidence, and the ordinary deference owed to lower-court factual findings.

What Happened

Texas Republicans enacted new congressional maps this year that plaintiffs say were designed to advantage the GOP and flip up to five House seats. Progressive groups sued, alleging the redistricting relied on racial data in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. A U.S. district judge — a Trump appointee — held a nine-day trial, heard testimony from 23 witnesses, and examined more than 3,000 pages of exhibits. The judge issued a 160-page opinion finding that the evidence supported a racial gerrymander and enjoined the maps.

Justice Kagan’s Dissent

Justice Kagan criticized the Supreme Court majority for reversing the district court’s judgment after what she described as a cursory review of the cold paper record. She emphasized that, under Supreme Court precedent, appellate courts must give significant deference to trial courts’ factual findings — especially on questions of racial intent. Kagan wrote that the majority effectively substituted its own judgment for that of the court that heard live testimony and weighed documentary evidence.

Key passage: Kagan noted that the Court reversed the district court’s findings after a holiday weekend review of the record, implying the high court did not fully engage with the trial court’s exhaustive factfinding.

Evidence From the Trial

The district court record included testimony by the state’s mapmaker acknowledging both a desire for more Republican seats and access to racial data "at the press of a key" on redistricting software. The plan produced three majority-Black or majority-Hispanic districts, in some cases by margins of less than half a percentage point. An expert who generated tens of thousands of partisan-favorable maps without race-based inputs testified that none of those maps resembled the racial composition of the 2025 plan. The trial court concluded these facts supported a finding of discriminatory intent.

Purcell Principle And The Majority’s Rationale

The Court’s majority justified its stay by invoking a version of the Purcell principle, which counsels courts to avoid changing election rules close to an election to prevent voter confusion. Kagan responded that Texas is not "on the eve of an election" — the decision came months before voting — and warned that an overly broad application of Purcell could shield unlawful maps from timely judicial review, enabling states to hold unlawful elections with impunity.

Broader Implications

Kagan warned that the majority’s reasoning could encourage other Republican-led states to adopt similar redistricting plans without effective judicial oversight. Critics argue the decision risks undermining protections against racial discrimination in voting and could erode public confidence in the Court’s impartiality.

Closing

In her closing remarks, Kagan reproached her colleagues for substituting appellate judgment for the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the institutional and constitutional consequences of that approach. The author of this article interprets the decision as further evidence of the Court’s shifting posture on politically charged voting-rights disputes.

This piece originally appeared on MS NOW.