The Supreme Court has cleared Texas’s new congressional map in a 6-3 decision, reversing a lower court that had blocked the plan and sending a message about judicial restraint in election rules.
The high court approved Texas’s redistricting maps in a 6-3 vote, a ruling that resets the state’s path toward the 2026 midterm elections. The League of United Latin American Citizens had challenged the maps, arguing they were drawn to dilute Latino voting power, while state officials said the plan reflects population shifts and state prerogatives.
A divided three-judge panel had enjoined Texas from using the maps, but Texas appealed and prevailed at the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined Justice Alito to grant the application for a stay, while Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented, signaling a deep ideological split over when courts should intervene in election maps.
The majority opinion, running about 20 pages, faulted the District Court for legal error and emphasized that lower courts must be cautious before reshuffling election rules. “Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors,” the opinion said. “First, the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature.”
The ruling criticized the lower court for stepping into an active primary campaign and disrupting normal state processes. “The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the opinion stated, stressing the need to respect legislative choices unless clear legal standards require otherwise.
The Court also addressed the practical side of mapmaking and evidence, pushing back on the idea that partisan intent can be presumed without a workable alternative map. “Although respondents’ experts could have easily produced such a map if that were possible, they did not, giving rise to a strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race. Neither the duration of the District Court’s hearing nor the length of its majority opinion provides an excuse for failing to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our case law.”
Texas officials framed the decision as a vindication of state authority to draw districts that reflect voters’ choices and demographic realities. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton welcomed the win and put it plainly: “In the face of Democrats’ attempt to abuse the judicial system to steal the U.S. House, I have defended Texas’s fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans,” Paxton said in a statement. “The Big Beautiful Map will be in effect for 2026,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state. This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.”
That language underscores the political stakes: Republicans expect the new lines to secure several seats in 2026, reshaping the battle for control of the U.S. House. The decision will allow Texas to proceed with its schedule and avoid last-minute changes to ballots and primary plans that courts had threatened when they sought to redraw lines close to an election.
While Texas celebrates, the redistricting fight is far from over nationwide, with other states in various stages of map changes and legal challenges pending. The Department of Justice has taken aim at California’s redistricting work, signaling that disputes over how lines are drawn will remain a central part of election politics as both parties defend maps that help them win.
