"We may be a higher court, but not a superior one": Kagan expresses anger at SCOTUS decision to allow Texas maps

On Thursday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Texas to implement congressional maps that favor Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections, overriding a lower courts determination that the maps likely represented an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Justice Elena Kagan issued a fiery dissent, far longer than the courts brief order, sharply criticizing the conservative majority for disregarding the lower courts meticulous findings. She emphasized that the lower court conducted a nine-day trial, heard testimony from nearly two dozen witnesses, and reviewed thousands of exhibits, compiling a factual record of approximately 3,000 pages. The court carefully evaluated witness credibility and concluded that race was a central factor in drawing the new districts.

Texas largely separated its residents along racial lines to produce a pro-Republican House map, violating the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, Kagan wrote. She noted that the Supreme Court majority offered no evidence challenging the district courts conclusions and failed to adhere to its own standards for reviewing fact-based decisions.

The district court produced a 160-page opinion detailing its factual findings. Yet this Court reversed that judgment after a cursory review of the record over a holiday weekend, Kagan added, in a dissent supported by the courts liberal justices. We may be a higher court than the District Court, but that does not make us better at deciding fact-intensive cases.

The redrawing of Texas districts was largely driven by former President Donald Trump, who sought to prevent a potential Democratic surge in 2026 from obstructing his political priorities. Kagans dissent lays out a detailed timeline of how Trump portrayed the unusual redistricting effort as legally necessary.

The maps were approved by the Texas legislature after a dramatic confrontation between state Democrats and law enforcement. Democratic lawmakers fled the state to block a quorum, aware that the Republican majority would pass the maps without opposition.

The Supreme Courts ruling effectively ensures that the new maps will govern the 2026 midterm elections.

In response, some Democratic-led states have proposed their own partisan redistricting efforts to counteract the potential seat gains in Texas, including California voters approving a measure to redraw districts in a way favorable to Democrats.

Author: Logan Reeves