The U.S. Supreme Courtrevived on Thursday a redrawnTexaselectoral map designed to add moreRepublicansto theU.S. House of Representatives, boosting PresidentDonald Trump’squest for his party to keep control ofCongressin the 2026 midterm elections.
The justices granted a request byTexasofficials to lift a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the state from using the Trump-backed map, which could flip as many as five currently Democratic-heldU.S. Houseseats toRepublicans. The lower court concluded that the map likely was racially discriminatory in violation ofU.S.constitutional protections.
Republicanscurrently hold slim majorities in both chambers ofCongress. Ceding control of either the House orSenateto theDemocratsin theNovember 2026elections would endanger Trump’s legislative agenda and open the door to Democratic-led congressional investigations targeting the president.
TheSupreme Court’s ruling comes amid a nationwide battle unfolding in Republican-governed and Democratic-led states involving the redrawing of electoral maps to change the population composition of congressional districts for partisan advantage.
JusticeSamuel AlitoonNovember 21temporarily paused the lower court’s ruling as theSupreme Courtweighed how to proceed with the case.
Redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a state is a process called redistricting. There have been legal fights at theSupreme Courtfor decades over a practice called gerrymandering – the redrawing of district boundaries in order to marginalize a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others.
TheSupreme Courtin a 2019 ruling declared that gerrymandering for partisan reasons – to boost the electoral chances of one’s own party and weaken one’s political opponent – cannot be challenged in federal courts. But gerrymandering driven primarily by race remains unlawful under theU.S.Constitution’s14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law and 15th Amendment prohibition on racial discrimination in voting.
ManyTexasRepublican lawmakers have said the new map was devised in response to Trump’s request to redraw electoral maps for a partisan advantage in House races. But theEl Paso-based court ruled 2-1 onNovember 18that the map likely amounted to an unlawful racial gerrymander, siding with civil rights groups that sued to block it.
Each of the 50 U.S. states is represented inCongressby twoU.S.senators, with representation in the 435-seat House based on population.California, the most-populous state, has the most House members with 52, whileTexasis second with 38.Republicanscurrently hold 25 of 38U.S. Houseseats inTexas.
‘Racial consierations’
TheTexaselectoral map at the center of the dispute was passed by the Republican-ledTexaslegislature and signed into law by Republican GovernorGreg Abbottin August.
U.S. District JudgeJeffrey Brown, who authored the lower court’s ruling, wrote that “what ultimately spurred”Texasto redraw its map was a letter from theU.S. Justice Departmenturging state officials to “inject racial considerations into whatTexasinsists was a race-blind process.”
Brown, a Trump judicial appointee, wrote that theJustice Department’sanalysis was based on the “legally incorrect assertion” that the racial composition of fourTexascongressional districts in the state’s previous electoral map was unconstitutional and that they must be redrawn.
“Had the Trump administration sentTexasa letter urging the state to redraw its congressional map to improve the performance of Republican candidates, the plaintiff groups would then face a much greater burden to show that race – rather than partisanship – was the driving force behind the 2025 map,” Brown wrote.
“But nothing in theDOJ(Department of Justice) letter is couched in terms of partisan politics,” the judge wrote. “The letter instead commandsTexasto change four districts for one reason and one reason alone: the racial demographics of the voters who live there.”
TheNAACPcivil rights group noted in a statement after the ruling that “the state ofTexasis only 40% white, but white voters control over 73% of the state’s congressional seats.”
The court directed that the state’s previous electoral map, approved by the Republican-led legislature in 2021, be used in the 2026 elections.
U.S.Circuit JudgeJerry Smith, an appointee of former PresidentRonald Reagan, broke with the court’s majority in a dissenting opinion.
“The main winners fromJudge Brown’sopinion areGeorge Sorosand (CaliforniaGovernor)Gavin Newsom,” Smith wrote. “The obvious losers are the People ofTexasand the Rule of Law.”
Soros, a billionaire financier and major Democratic donor, has long been considered a villain by Trump and his political base. Newsom is a prominent Democrat who has said he is considering a 2028 presidential run.
The lower court’s ruling marked the latest setback in Trump’s push to tilt political maps.IndianaRepublicansonNovember 14abandoned a legislative session that had been called to enact a new congressional map in that state.
Democratic-governedCaliforniareacted to theTexasredistricting by initiating its own effort targeting five Republican-held districts in the state.Californiavoters in November overwhelmingly approved a new map beneficial toDemocrats. The Trump administration has suedCaliforniato try to stop its new congressional map from taking effect.
Redistricting generally occurs to reflect population changes as measured by the national census conducted each decade, though this year’s redistricting has been motivated by securing partisan advantage.
TheSupreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, during its current term already has heard arguments in another major case involving race and redistricting. The conservative justices in a case involving a map ofU.S. Housedistricts inLouisianasignaled their willingness to undercut another key section of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 federal law enacted byCongressto prevent racial discrimination in voting.
About The Author
