In a big win for Republicans the U.S. Supreme Court ordered late on Dec. 4 that a redrawn congressional district map expected to increase Republican representation in Texas’s U.S. House delegation will remain in place.
Republicans currently enjoy a razor-thin majority over Democrats in the House of Representatives, and Texas Republicans currently hold 25 of the state’s U.S. House seats. Democrats hold 12 seats. Congressional elections are scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026.
The court’s new unsigned order in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott was issued over the predicable dissents of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the order. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the concurrence.
The order overturns a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that held 2–1 on Nov. 18 that the state may not use the new map because “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
In the federal district court’s now overturned majority opinion, Judge Jeffrey V. Brown said that “the Plaintiff Groups are likely to prove at trial that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, who sat on the panel, filed a strongly worded dissenting opinion, describing the ruling as the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he has ever witnessed.
In its new order, the Supreme Court majority wrote, “Based on our preliminary evaluation of this case, Texas satisfies the traditional criteria for interim relief.”
The state is likely to succeed in its claim that the district court “committed at least two serious errors,” the high court said.
First, by “construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature,” the district court failed to honor the legal presumption that the Texas Legislature acted in good faith.
Second, the district court “failed to draw a dispositive or near-dispositive adverse inference against [the] respondents even though they did not produce a viable alternative map that met the State’s avowedly partisan goals,” the Supreme Court said.
The high court said Texas also made “a strong showing” that it would suffer irreparable harm if the district court’s ruling were not stayed. The district court “violated” the Supreme Court’s ruling in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (2020), which held that lower federal courts should avoid altering election rules on the eve of an election.
“The District Court inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the Supreme Court majority wrote, according to reporting by the Epoch Times.
The ruling states that the new order would remain in effect throughout an appeal should the respondents file one with the Supreme Court.
Alito wrote in his opinion that he was concurring because “Texas needs certainty on which map will govern the 2026 midterm elections.”
“[The district court failed] to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our own case law,” the justice said.
Republicans currently enjoy a razor-thin majority over Democrats in the House of Representatives, and Texas Republicans currently hold 25 of the state’s U.S. House seats. Democrats hold 12 seats. Congressional elections are scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026.
The court’s new unsigned order in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott was issued over the predicable dissents of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the order. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the concurrence.
The order overturns a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that held 2–1 on Nov. 18 that the state may not use the new map because “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
In the federal district court’s now overturned majority opinion, Judge Jeffrey V. Brown said that “the Plaintiff Groups are likely to prove at trial that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, who sat on the panel, filed a strongly worded dissenting opinion, describing the ruling as the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he has ever witnessed.
In its new order, the Supreme Court majority wrote, “Based on our preliminary evaluation of this case, Texas satisfies the traditional criteria for interim relief.”
The state is likely to succeed in its claim that the district court “committed at least two serious errors,” the high court said.
First, by “construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature,” the district court failed to honor the legal presumption that the Texas Legislature acted in good faith.
Second, the district court “failed to draw a dispositive or near-dispositive adverse inference against [the] respondents even though they did not produce a viable alternative map that met the State’s avowedly partisan goals,” the Supreme Court said.
The high court said Texas also made “a strong showing” that it would suffer irreparable harm if the district court’s ruling were not stayed. The district court “violated” the Supreme Court’s ruling in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (2020), which held that lower federal courts should avoid altering election rules on the eve of an election.
“The District Court inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the Supreme Court majority wrote, according to reporting by the Epoch Times.
The ruling states that the new order would remain in effect throughout an appeal should the respondents file one with the Supreme Court.
Alito wrote in his opinion that he was concurring because “Texas needs certainty on which map will govern the 2026 midterm elections.”
“[The district court failed] to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our own case law,” the justice said.
