Texas’ newly redrawn congressional map, poised to reshape the state’s political balance, is now embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle.
With courts weighing allegations of racial bias, the U.S. Supreme Court’s unexpected intervention raises questions about how electoral boundaries can influence partisan power even before voters go to the polls.
Late on November 21, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay, temporarily allowing Texas’ 2025 congressional map to remain in effect despite a lower court ruling that had struck it down over claims of racial gerrymandering.
The emergency order came just hours after Texas appealed a November 18 decision by the federal district court for the Western District of Texas.
That ruling concluded challengers could likely prove at trial that the new map was racially discriminatory. Justice Samuel Alito, overseeing urgent Texas appeals, granted the administrative stay to maintain the status quo while the Supreme Court reviews the case.
Currently, Republicans hold a slim majority in Texas’ U.S. House delegation, controlling 25 of 37 seats, while Democrats hold 12. Congressional elections are scheduled for November 3, 2026.
Texas’ emergency filing asks the Supreme Court to block the lower court’s ruling until a full review is complete. Under federal law, the Voting Rights Act allows Texas to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Fifth Circuit.
In the district court ruling, a three-judge panel held 2–1 that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” in the case League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott. Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, writing for the majority, stated that plaintiffs were “likely to prove at trial that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.” Judge David C. Guaderrama joined the opinion.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith dissented, calling the decision “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he had witnessed and warning it could disrupt the functioning of a duly-elected state government.
Earlier on November 21, the same panel denied Texas’ request to pause the ruling while the appeal proceeded, again with Smith dissenting. The case highlights the continuing legal and political tensions surrounding redistricting, particularly where allegations of racial bias intersect with partisan strategy.
Gerrymandering—manipulating district boundaries to favor one party—remains controversial. While race-based gerrymandering is unconstitutional, partisan-based redistricting generally remains legal, creating a gray area that often sparks litigation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s emergency stay keeps Texas’ congressional map in place for now, preventing immediate changes while the case works its way through the courts.
The dispute underscores the fraught intersection of state-controlled redistricting, racial equity concerns, and judicial oversight, illustrating how electoral maps can serve as critical battlegrounds for political power.