Supreme Court Allows Texas to Use GOP-Favorable Congressional Map in 2026 Despite Racial Discrimination Ruling

Dec 4, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Texas to use a new congressional map for the 2026 elections that is highly favorable to Republicans. The ruling, made on an emergency basis, pauses a lower court's decision that found the map likely constituted illegal racial gerrymandering. The map, pushed by Donald Trump, is designed to add five GOP seats and has eliminated five "coalition" districts where minority voters held sway.

Supreme Court emergency stay

▪The U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to use its new, GOP-favorable congressional map for the 2026 elections.
▪The court acted on an emergency request from Texas due to an approaching Dec. 8 candidate filing deadline and March primary elections.
▪The Supreme Court's order puts a lower court's 2-1 ruling, which found the map likely discriminates by race, on hold.

Trump-driven nationwide redistricting battle

▪The justices are separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
▪The Texas congressional map was enacted at the urging of President Donald Trump as part of a nationwide redistricting battle.
▪The new Texas map was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, increasing their control from 25 to 30 of the state's 38 districts.
▪Following Texas, Missouri and North Carolina drew maps adding one GOP seat each, while California voters approved a map adding five Democratic seats.

Racial gerrymandering findings

▪A lower court panel, led by Trump-appointee Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, concluded the map likely dilutes the political power of Black and Latino voters.
▪Judge Brown wrote that "Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map," going beyond just politics.
▪In a dissenting opinion on the lower court panel, Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, called the majority opinion a candidate for the "Nobel Prize for Fiction."

Partisan versus racial intent

▪The Supreme Court's majority stated in an unsigned opinion that Texas lawmakers had "avowedly partisan goals."
▪The new map's partisan design pushed several Democratic incumbents into districts already occupied by another Democrat, forcing them to consider primaries or retirement.
▪Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Texas' motivation was "pure and simple" partisan advantage, which the court has previously deemed permissible.

Coalition district elimination

▪Critics of the map argue that new minority-majority districts have such slim majorities that white voters, with higher turnout, will still control election outcomes.
▪The new map eliminated five of the state's nine "coalition" districts, where minority groups collectively outnumber non-Hispanic white voters.
▪The total number of congressional districts with a majority of minority voting-age citizens dropped from 16 to 14 under the new map.

Political reactions to ruling

▪DNC chairman Ken Martin called the decision "wrong — both morally and legally," while Texas Rep. Gene Wu said it showed the "end of the Voting Rights Act."
▪Texas Gov. Greg Abbott celebrated the ruling with a statement saying, "We won! Texas is officially — and legally — more red."
▪Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the ruling as a "massive win for Texas and every conservative."
▪In her dissent, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote the ruling "ensures that many Texas citizens... will be placed in electoral districts because of their race."