The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an unsigned order allowing Texas to proceed with its newly redrawn congressional district map, which will be used in the next year’s midterm elections.
In an emergency application filed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the conservative-leaning court paused a lower ruling that found the map unlawful due to explicit consideration of race by Republican lawmakers. The majority opinion concluded that Texas is “likely to succeed on the merits of its claim,” including that the state legislature acted in good faith.
The decision, delivered Thursday, marks a victory for the state after a federal district court previously blocked the implementation of this particular map. According to legal filings, the lower court had determined that the map’s purpose included increasing Republican political power through racial considerations.
This ruling appears poised to give Republicans five additional House seats from Texas based on partisan redistricting principles rather than demographic factors alone. The map was drawn with the aim of adding up to five more Republican representatives to Congress—a change no party disputes—but opponents argue it violates equal protection laws by diluting minority voting strength across certain districts.
Writing in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the decision “disrespects” the district court’s findings and its own work. She noted concerns regarding evidence showing race was a motivating factor behind map-drawing decisions while acknowledging the state’s argument about partisan intent without voter demographics being legally relevant to maximize political advantage under specific circumstances.
Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the decision as reflecting “the political climate of our state” and welcomed it with relief. Governor Abbott expressed congratulations on social media following the ruling.
The map had been temporarily blocked by a federal judge who also noted that President Donald Trump’s administration played a role in urging lawmakers toward creating districts maximizing Republican representation, a factor considered central to their drawing process according to some court filings.
In his concurring opinion supporting the majority view but disagreeing with parts of Justice Samuel Alito’s reasoning regarding how partisan intent should be proven or disproven (the dissenters noted that plaintiffs challenging the map did not produce alternative maps showing Texas’ Republican goals could still be met), conservative Justice Samuel Alito emphasized a stronger legal inference against the presence of race-based motives when the state’s actions are demonstrably partisan.