The United States Supreme Court just gave the five seat Republican gain Texas redistricting map a greenlight.
The U.S. Supreme Court has officially reversed a three-judge panel’s ruling that blocked Texas’ new congressional map. The Court had already stayed the lower court ruling, allowing the map to be used for the 2026 midterms.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the 6-3 decision.
The new map, drawn by lawmakers in special sessions last summer, took five Democrat districts and turned them into GOP-opportunity seats.
In November, a federal three-judge panel enjoined the map after lawsuits from left-wing groups sought to block its use and force a return to the previous map—which had more Democrat seats.
Plaintiffs claimed both racial gerrymandering and racial vote dilution—the latter being a claim under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that does not require intentional discrimination.
To be granted a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must prove intentional discrimination occurred. For this reason, plaintiffs dropped the VRA claims in seeking the injunction.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately appealed the panel’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In December, the Court granted an emergency stay allowing Texas’ new map to remain in place for the 2026 elections while litigation continues.
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court officially overturned the lower court ruling, rejecting claims that the map constituted a racial gerrymander.
Paxton released a statement celebrating the victory, writing that he has “yet again successfully defended Texas’s Big Beautiful Map in the U.S. Supreme Court.”
“Radical left-wing groups attempted to sabotage Texas’s lawful redistricting efforts, but the Supreme Court’s ruling is a clear rejection of these meritless attacks and a victory for the rule of law,” said Paxton. “Texas’s congressional map is lawful, constitutional, and reflects the will of our citizens, and I will continue to aggressively defend its use ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.”
There is a partial catch, but it may not matter.
Monday’s ruling does not mean litigation against Texas’ 2025 map has concluded. Because only the racial gerrymander claims were considered in seeking the injunction, the VRA racial vote dilution claim remains active in the broader suit.
However, this claim may no longer be relevant by the time litigation resumes at the district court level.
Racial vote dilution relies on the current precedential understanding of Section 2 of the VRA, protecting certain congressional districts from being redrawn based solely on their racial composition.
If the majority of a district’s citizen voting-age population (CVAP) is a single racial minority group, state legislators are restricted from modifying it—even when the change is an unintentional byproduct of drawing a map “blind to race,” as required under the Constitution.
A case out of Louisiana is currently before the Supreme Court that experts predict will remove this understanding of the VRA, making racial vote dilution an irrelevant claim. Justice Samuel Alito is expected to write the decision in the coming months.
As previously noted, the entire redistricting fight happened because of Petteway v. Galveston County, a Democrat-initiated lawsuit where they tried to save one commissioners court seat in Galveston County, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling that black and Hispanic “coalition” districts are not protected by the Voting Rights Act, and are in fact unconstitutional. The end result, Democrats losing five congressional seats in Texas alone, makes it one of the greatest unintended consequence self-owns in history.
Tags: 2026 Election, Democrats, Elections, Elena Kagan, Gerrymander, Ken Paxton, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Lawsuit, Petteway v. Galveston County, Redistricting, Republicans, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court, Texas, Travis Morgan, Voting Rights Act