The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Texas may proceed with using a controversial congressional map designed to favor Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections.
The decision split along ideological lines: the court’s six conservative justices cleared the map, while the three liberal justices dissented. The high court lifted a lower court’s November order that had barred Texas from using the map after finding the state had “racially gerrymandered” districts in violation of the US Constitution.
Texas filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that campaigning for the November 2026 midterms is already underway and candidates need clarity about district boundaries. In a brief, unsigned order, the conservative majority said Texas was likely to prevail “on the merits of its claims” and cited precedent that lower courts should ordinarily avoid changing election rules on the eve of an election, warning that doing so would cause “irreparable harm” to the state.
The map at issue has set off a nationwide scramble to redraw congressional districts ahead of the midterms. Reports in June said President Donald Trump pushed Texas lawmakers to adopt a new map that would give Republicans an additional five House seats. Texas, with 38 House seats, currently has 25 Republican members. The Republican majority in the House overall is narrow—about 220 of 435 seats—so both parties are maneuvering to shape the 2026 battleground.
Democrats sought to block the Texas effort. Outnumbered in the state legislature, some Democratic lawmakers staged a walkout to deny a quorum and prevent a vote, but they ultimately returned and the Republican-led legislature approved the new districts in August. The move touched off similar efforts elsewhere: Republicans in Missouri and North Carolina adopted maps expected to net an extra Republican seat each, while California voters approved a ballot measure to replace an independent redistricting commission with a partisan process designed to produce five additional Democratic seats.
Partisan redistricting—commonly called gerrymandering—has long been controversial, with voting rights advocates saying it can disenfranchise minority communities. Federal courts have generally declined to police partisan gerrymandering, though race-based gerrymandering remains prohibited under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That distinction brought the Texas dispute—Greg Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens—before the Supreme Court.
In November, the US District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled 2-1 for plaintiffs who argued the new map was intended to dilute Black and Latino voting power. The district court cited statements from Trump administration officials and Texas Governor Greg Abbott suggesting intent to target non-white districts. The lower court issued a detailed, 160-page decision after a nine-day hearing with testimony from nearly two dozen witnesses and thousands of exhibits.
The Supreme Court majority said the district court failed to “honor the presumption of legislative good faith” and described the statements relied upon as “ambiguous” and “circumstantial evidence.” Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the right, warned that because race and partisan preference often correlate, claims of racial gerrymandering can be used for partisan ends; he argued plaintiffs must show how a partisan map would differ from a race-based one.
Justice Elena Kagan, in a pointed dissent, criticized the majority for overturning the district court’s fact-heavy finding after only a brief review. She noted the extensive record the lower court compiled and argued that the district court’s judgment—that Texas largely divided voters along racial lines to create a pro-Republican map violating the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments—should not have been set aside on such thin emergency review.
Republican officials hailed the ruling. Governor Abbott said the decision “restored the congressional redistricting maps passed by Texas that add 5 more Republican seats,” and Attorney General Ken Paxton credited his office’s defense of the map. Democrats and voting rights advocates vowed to continue legal challenges. Texas state Representative James Talarico said voters are supposed to choose politicians, not the reverse, and pledged to keep fighting despite the Supreme Court’s action.
The Trump administration is separately challenging California’s recent partisan redistricting changes; that litigation is ongoing. Plaintiffs and civil rights groups said they will press further claims against Texas’s new map in the lower courts, seeking a fuller review of the factual record and the alleged racial targeting underlying the redistricting.
