Texas Republicans will run the 2026 midterms on a congressional map that a panel of federal judges found likely violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act — because the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to keep the map in place while the underlying case continues.
A Map Built for Mid-Decade Gains
Texas’s Republican-controlled Legislature redrew its 38 congressional districts in 2025, in a mid-decade effort widely reported to have been encouraged by President Donald Trump as part of a broader national push by both parties to squeeze out extra U.S. House seats before the midterms. The new map, known in litigation as Plan C2333, was projected to convert several competitive or Democratic-leaning districts into safe Republican seats. The push made Texas one of the first states to embrace mid-decade redistricting this cycle, a strategy that quickly spread to Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and North Carolina as Republicans sought to offset anticipated midterm losses, while California and other Democratic-led states pursued their own countermeasures.
The Trial and the Injunction
A coalition of civil rights groups representing Black and Hispanic voters sued, arguing the map was a racial gerrymander that diluted minority voting strength in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. After a nearly two-week trial in El Paso, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on November 18, 2025, that Texas could not use the new map for 2026 and would have to revert to the map used since 2021. Galveston-based District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion finding “substantial evidence” of racial gerrymandering, joined by an Obama-appointed colleague; 5th U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith dissented sharply, arguing the majority had overstepped its role and second-guessed a Legislature acting within its constitutional authority.
The Supreme Court Steps In
Texas immediately sought emergency relief, and on December 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay pausing the district court’s injunction, allowing the 2025 map to remain in effect for the 2026 primaries and general election. In a brief, unsigned five-paragraph order, the Court’s six conservative justices found Texas was “likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors,” while the three liberal justices dissented as a bloc, siding with the plaintiffs.
Arguments on Both Sides
Texas Republican officials and the state Attorney General’s office called the stay a vindication, arguing the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority to draw districts based on partisan, not racial, considerations, and that the lower court had wrongly second-guessed a facially neutral map. Civil rights attorneys, including groups aligned with MALDEF, countered that the stay does not mean Texas wins the case — only that the challenged map gets to be used for one more election cycle while the underlying claim of intentional discrimination against Black and Hispanic voters is fully litigated, delaying but not erasing the legal jeopardy the map faces. Voting-rights groups say the stay illustrates a broader pattern this cycle in which the Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed contested maps to remain in effect for an election while merits questions remain unresolved, effectively giving states the benefit of the doubt at the ballot box even when lower courts found likely constitutional violations.
A Case Still Very Much Alive
Unlike some redistricting disputes resolved for good this cycle, the Texas case remains open. The stay only paused the injunction pending appeal; the three-judge panel’s underlying findings on the merits — including its conclusion that lawmakers likely intended to discriminate — have not been overturned, and the litigation is expected to continue toward a full merits trial and further appellate review extending into 2027.
What It Means Going Forward
For now, Texas voters will cast ballots in November under a map a federal court already concluded was probably drawn to discriminate against minority voters — a striking illustration of how procedural rulings on emergency stays, rather than final decisions on the merits, are increasingly determining which maps actually govern elections in the current redistricting cycle. If the case is ultimately decided against the state after the midterms, Texas could face yet another mid-decade redraw before 2028, extending a legal fight that has already reshaped the battle for U.S. House control nationally.
Photo: TillVoigt / PIXABAY via Pixabay
