Supreme Court approves Texas' use of congressional map supported by Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 4 that Texas may move forward with a congressional district map designed to benefit former President Donald Trump and Republican candidates in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision pauses a lower courts finding that the map likely weakens the electoral influence of Hispanic and Black voters, allowing the boundaries to remain in effect while the case continues.

The order replaced an earlier temporary halt issued on Nov. 21 by Justice Samuel Alito. The Courts three liberal justices dissented.

Redistricting Effort Accelerated

At the urging of the Trump administration, Texas lawmakersholding a Republican majorityinitiated a rare mid-decade redistricting effort. This prompted several states to consider similar steps, many of which are now facing their own legal battles.

Although national political analysts still see Democrats as positioned to retake the U.S. House next year, that outlook could shift depending on the outcome of a related Supreme Court case from Louisiana. Depending on the justices ruling, southern states could pursue additional redistricting efforts that may lead to the creation of several GOP-leaning districts.

Republicans Seek Additional Seats

Texas new map was created with the goal of helping Republicans secure as many as five additional congressional seats. The GOP currently controls 25 of Texas 38 U.S. House districts. Any Democratic takeover of the chamber would hinder Trumps legislative agenda and open the door to new congressional investigations.

Accusations of Racial Gerrymandering

Civil rights advocates and other challengers argue the map reduces the number of districts in which Hispanic and Black voters form a majority, effectively diminishing their political influence. Attorneys for the challengers called the case a stark example of racial gerrymandering.

Lower Court Found Racial Intent

A three-judge federal panel ruled 21 that the Texas Legislature relied on racial considerations when redrawing the map. The judges cited evidence suggesting the effort was guided by discussions involving the Trump administration regarding the racial composition of certain districts.

Judge Jeffrey Brown wrote that the redistricting went beyond political motivations, concluding that substantial evidence showed Texas engaged in racial gerrymandering. In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Jerry Smith criticized the ruling as an extreme instance of judicial overreach.

Texas Rejects Claims of Racial Motives

Texas officials argued before the Supreme Court that partisan strategynot raceguided the redistricting process. They also said the lower courts ruling would create confusion, as candidates had already begun filing paperwork to run under the new boundaries.

The U.S. Justice Department supported Texas position, stating that the lower court misunderstood the guidance the administration provided and asserting that the map was drawn without the use of racial data.

Challengers Cite Extensive Testimony

Opponents of the map emphasized that the lower courts decision rested on nine days of testimony, including numerous witnesses and extensive footage of lawmakers and Gov. Greg Abbott discussing their goals for the redistricting plan.

They also rejected the idea that upcoming filing deadlines should influence the Courts decision, arguing that Texas created the time crunch by choosing to redraw the map mid-cycle. According to the challengers, the state should not be able to avoid judicial scrutiny simply by acting close to an election.

Author: Gavin Porter