Supreme Court supports Texas in case against discriminatory congressional map

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Texas in an urgent legal dispute over a congressional map backed by former President Donald Trump, which critics argued was designed to advantage Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Three justices appointed by Democrats dissented from the majority, which was appointed by Republicans, in Thursday's decision to allow the Trump-endorsed map to take effect.

The court's majority justified its action by stating that Texas is likely to prevail in its appeal. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenting justices, argued that the decision would result in many Texans being assigned to districts based on race, calling it a clear constitutional violation.

Earlier, a three-judge panel had ruled on November 18 that the states map was likely racially discriminatory. Texas immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, with the case initially assigned to Justice Samuel Alito. On November 21, Alito temporarily blocked the lower courts decision while the full court reviewed the matter.

Texas maintained that its map, created over the summer at Trumps urging, was politically motivated rather than racially motivateda distinction the Supreme Court has previously allowed. The state also pointed out that California had acted to add Democratic seats in response.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, had ruled that although political considerations influenced the 2025 map, evidence showed racial gerrymandering played a significant role. His decision, supported by one other judge, required the state to revert to the 2021 congressional map for the 2026 election. Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, dissented sharply, criticizing Brown personally and suggesting that progressive figures would benefit from his ruling.

Author: Ethan Caldwell