The Supreme Court allowed Texas to use a redrawn congressional map that voting rights groups challenged as an illegal racial gerrymander, handing Republicans a significant redistricting win.
The unsigned 6-3 decision, issued in December, blocked lower court intervention in the map change ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The three liberal justices-Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson-dissented from the ruling.
What the Court Ruled
The Supreme Court said the lower court should not have “interfered with an active primary campaign, causing considerable confusion and disrupting the balance between federal and state elections,” according to the unsigned order.
The justices declined to explain their reasoning in detail, instead referencing an earlier case, Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens. The Department of Justice had urged the court to block the map, arguing Texas pursued “partisan objectives” rather than legitimate racial concerns in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Voting rights organizations that sued claimed the redrawn districts amounted to an illegal racial gerrymander. They argued Texas failed to provide an alternative map meeting the state’s political requirements, the court noted.
Broader Redistricting Battles
The Texas decision arrives amid national mid-cycle redistricting fights between the parties. The Supreme Court previously approved temporary maps for both Texas and California in December and February respectively, effectively canceling out partisan gains for both Republicans and Democrats before 2026.
A parallel dispute in Virginia has intensified as the state’s Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on a voter-approved referendum to redraw congressional districts. Analysts suggested the new map could favor Democrats in up to 10 of Virginia’s 11 seats.
A lower court judge blocked the Virginia referendum’s certification, citing procedural violations in how lawmakers placed the measure on the ballot. Republican officials challenged the referendum on both procedural and constitutional grounds, arguing it constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
This story has been updated. CNN’s Digital team contributed to this report.
