The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower-court decision that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race. The emergency order, signed by Justice Samuel Alito, will remain in place for at least several days while the justices consider whether the new map may be used in the 2026 midterm elections. Alito handles emergency appeals from Texas.
The conservative majority on the court has repeatedly stayed lower-court redistricting rulings when litigation approaches an election. Texas asked the high court to step in roughly an hour before Friday’s order, citing the upcoming congressional primary schedule. The court has issued similar temporary stays in recent disputes over maps in Alabama and Louisiana.
Texas adopted the contested map last summer as part of a redistricting plan critics say was engineered to preserve a narrow Republican advantage in the U.S. House. The GOP-drawn map was designed to produce five additional Republican-leaning seats. A three-judge federal panel in El Paso ruled 2-1 earlier this week that civil rights groups bringing the challenge on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to prevail in showing the plan is racially discriminatory.
If the panel’s finding is ultimately upheld and the Supreme Court declines to let the new map stand, Texas could be required to hold elections using the Legislature’s 2021 congressional map, which was based on the 2020 census.
Texas was the first state to adopt a map tied to Trump-era redistricting goals; since then, Missouri and North Carolina each approved plans that add one Republican-leaning seat. Voters in California responded by approving a ballot measure that will effectively add five Democratic-leaning seats. The new maps in California, Missouri and North Carolina also face ongoing legal challenges.
Separately, the Supreme Court is weighing a Louisiana case that could further limit the use of race in drawing districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Observers say the outcome of that case could have broader implications for current and future redistricting disputes, though its precise effect on the present wave of litigation remains uncertain.