Texas just scored a major win in the redistricting wars with the Supreme Court giving the green light to a new congressional map that could tilt the balance of power.
On Thursday, December 4, 2025, the high court granted an emergency request from Texas Governor Greg Abbott to use a freshly drawn map for the 2026 midterm elections, a map crafted to bolster Republican strength and potentially add up to five House seats to their tally.
This saga kicked off earlier in 2025 when the Trump administration nudged Texas to redraw districts outside the usual post-census cycle, even warning the state of federal action if it didn’t dismantle so-called coalition districts where nonwhite voters form majorities.
A lower court initially struck down the map in a 2-1 ruling, finding clear evidence of racial considerations in its design, which they argued violated the 14th Amendment.
Despite this, Texas argued before the Supreme Court that the map was purely about partisan advantage, not race, and that federal interference came too late in the election cycle.
The Supreme Court, in a probable 6-3 split with its conservative majority prevailing, paused the lower court’s decision on December 4, 2025, after provisionally halting it on November 21 under Justice Samuel Alito’s order.
The unsigned order from the court claimed Texas was likely to win on the merits and criticized the lower court for not respecting the state Legislature’s presumed good faith.
Interestingly, the justices noted the lower court’s intervention came too close to the 2026 midterms—still almost a year away—suggesting a hands-off approach to state-driven electoral changes.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton cheered the ruling, declaring, “This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.” Well, Paxton’s not wrong—progressive challenges often seem timed to disrupt rather than resolve.
Critics, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Texas NAACP, alongside Democratic Representatives Al Green and Jasmine Crockett, filed suits claiming the map’s true intent was racial gerrymandering masked as partisan politics.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., blasted the decision on X, saying the court “shredded its credibility by rubber-stamping a racially gerrymandered map.” While Jeffries’ frustration is palpable, the 2019 Supreme Court precedent does allow partisan redistricting, even if it’s a bitter pill for opponents to swallow.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, wrote that the ruling “disrespects the work of a district court that did everything one could ask” and “disserves the millions of Texans whom the district court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.” Kagan’s point stings, but with Republicans holding a slim House majority, Texas’s move could be a legitimate, if hardball, play for stability.
Democrats aren’t sitting idly by—they’ve launched a counteroffensive in California to redraw their own map, aiming to offset Texas’ potential Republican gains, with legal battles likely headed to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration, through the Justice Department, backed Texas with a separate brief urging the court to side with the state, showing how deeply national politics intertwine with local maps.
At the end of the day, this ruling reinforces a tough reality: states have wide latitude to redraw districts for political gain, even if the optics—or the ethics—raise eyebrows. While the debate over race versus partisanship rages on, Texas has secured a strategic edge for 2026, leaving opponents to regroup and rethink. It’s a messy game, but in politics, it’s rarely anything else.
