Supreme Court approves Texas to use Trump-supported congressional map in upcoming elections

The Supreme Court on Thursday approved Texas use of a congressional map designed to strengthen Republican prospects, supporting former President Donald Trumps effort to maintain GOP control of Congress. This decision overturns a lower court ruling that had deemed the new districts likely unconstitutional due to racial considerations.

The ruling carries major implications for the upcoming midterm elections, which will shape the House of Representatives for the remaining two years of Trumps influence in federal politics. Blocking Texas from using its revised map could have disrupted Trumps nationwide strategy to prevent a Democratic majority in the House.

The Court issued a concise unsigned opinion granting Texas request, despite opposition from its three liberal justices. According to the Court, the lower court may have erred by not respecting the presumption of legislative good faith when interpreting ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature.

While unsigned, the decision was accompanied by opinions from several justices. Justice Samuel Alito, aligned with the Courts conservatives, stated that the motivation for Texas map, similar to Californias map, was entirely for partisan gain. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito in this view. The argument is significant because if redistricting is solely political, federal courts lack jurisdiction over the matter.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the ruling, asserting it harms Texans whose districts were redrawn based on race. Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kagan argued the Supreme Court overstepped by overturning the District Courts racial findings under the guise of achieving partisan objectives.

Texas officials had rushed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to approve the map, which could flip five Democratic-held seats to Republicans. A lower court had blocked the map, citing probable unconstitutional racial considerations.

Republicans currently hold a narrow three-seat majority in the House, making the potential shift of five seats crucial for maintaining control and the speakership.

The Texas redistricting was part of a broader strategy encouraged by Trump in several states to maximize Republican advantage, triggering competitive map redraws in both red and blue states. A 2019 Supreme Court ruling limits federal courts from addressing purely partisan gerrymandering, leaving such disputes to political processes.

The controversy escalated when the Justice Department urged Texas to redraw districts to address racial imbalance rather than partisan gains. Texas Governor Greg Abbott cited the DOJ guidance as justification for the new lines.

US District Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by Trump, criticized the DOJs position, noting that while race can be a factor in redistricting, it cannot be the predominant one. Brown found that the governor had directed the legislature to prioritize race in drawing the new districts.

Texas claimed the lower courts block caused chaos, highlighting deadlines for candidate filings by December 8 and primaries in March. Early campaigning had already begun under the 2025 map.

Following the emergency appeal, Justice Alito temporarily stayed the lower court ruling to allow the Supreme Court time for review. Plaintiffs, including the Texas NAACP, warned against hasty decisions, arguing the state could have complied with legal requirements without targeting minority voters.

Legal disputes over Trump-era mid-decade redistricting are expected to continue. The Justice Department recently sued California officials over maps favoring Democrats, with hearings scheduled in the coming month.

Author: Ava Mitchell