The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Texas to use a contested congressional map that critics say favors Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections. The unsigned order from the court’s conservative majority lifted a lower court injunction that had blocked the plan after finding evidence of racial gerrymandering.
The decision divided the court along ideological lines: six conservative justices voted to let the map stand, while the three liberal justices dissented. In granting Texas an emergency stay, the majority said the state was likely to prevail on the merits and stressed precedent that lower courts should avoid changing election rules on the eve of campaigns, warning that disrupting the process would inflict “irreparable harm.”
Texas appealed to the high court after a federal district court in the Western District of Texas ruled in November, by a 2-1 vote, that the map was drawn to dilute Black and Latino voting strength in violation of the Constitution. That ruling followed a nine-day trial with nearly two dozen witnesses and thousands of exhibits and produced a detailed, 160-page opinion tying comments by Trump administration officials and Governor Greg Abbott to the state’s intent.
Supporters of the map argue candidates and voters need clarity about district boundaries as campaigning ramps up for the 2026 midterms. The map has touched off a nationwide scramble over congressional lines: reports said former President Donald Trump encouraged Texas lawmakers to adopt a plan that would net Republicans roughly five additional House seats. Texas has 38 seats and currently sends 25 Republicans to Congress. With the overall House majority slim—about 220 of 435 seats—both parties are maneuvering to shape next year’s battlegrounds.
In Texas, Democrats — outnumbered in the legislature — briefly staged a walkout to try to block the reapportionment vote but ultimately returned, and the Republican-controlled legislature approved the new districts in August. Similar partisan redraws have appeared elsewhere: Republican legislatures in Missouri and North Carolina adopted maps expected to produce one extra GOP seat apiece, while California voters recently approved a change to replace an independent redistricting commission with a more partisan process that could yield additional Democratic seats.
The dispute highlights the long-running debate over gerrymandering. Federal courts have been reluctant to police purely partisan maps, but maps drawn with race as the predominant factor remain unlawful under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. That legal distinction was central to the litigation, brought as Greg Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the district court failed to give legislators the presumption of good faith and described the statements relied on by plaintiffs as ambiguous and circumstantial. He cautioned that because race and political preference often overlap, racial-gerrymandering claims can blur into partisan disputes and require the court to separate those motives.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the other liberals, issued a sharp dissent. She faulted the majority for upsetting a fact-intensive district court judgment after a limited emergency review, arguing the lower court’s extensive record supported its finding that race—rather than neutral districting principles—drove the line-drawing.
Republican officials praised the Supreme Court action. Governor Abbott said the ruling restored maps that add Republican seats, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton highlighted his office’s defense of the plan. Democrats and voting-rights advocates said they will keep litigating, promising to press claims in the lower courts for a fuller review of the factual record and the alleged racial targeting.
Separate legal fights continue elsewhere, including a Trump administration challenge to California’s recent redistricting changes. Civil-rights groups and plaintiffs in multiple states say they will pursue additional challenges as courts grapple with when and how to intervene in politically charged redistricting disputes.