Supreme Court allows Texas to use Trump-backed congressional map in midterms

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Texas to use a congressional map that will boost President Donald Trump’s effort to keep Republicans in control of Congress, blocking a lower court decision that found the new boundaries were likely unconstitutional because they were drawn based on race.

The decision could have significant consequences for next year’s midterm elections, which will determine control of the House for the final two years of Trump’s presidency. Had Texas been blocked from using its new map, it would have upended Trump’s nationwide push to avoid a Democratic House majority.

The court issued a brief unsigned opinion granting Texas’s request over the objection from the court’s three liberal justices.

In its brief order, the Supreme Court said that a lower court that ruled against the map likely did so in error, in part because it failed to honor “the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature.” Though the court’s order was not signed, several justices joined two additional opinions laying out their views.

Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote that it was “indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” His opinion was joined by two other conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Alito’s point was significant because, if the redistricting was solely based on politics, then federal courts would have no jurisdiction to hear the case.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision “disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.”

“The majority today loses sight of its proper role,” Kagan wrote, asserting that the Supreme Court should have reviewed the lower court’s decision for “clear error,” which she said was never established.

The majority can reach the result it does – overturning the District Court’s finding of racial line-drawing, even if to achieve partisan goals – only by arrogating to itself that court’s rightful function. We know better, the majority declares today. I cannot think of a reason why.”

Kagan was joined by the court’s other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Texas officials raced to the Supreme Court late last month with an emergency appeal seeking permission to use their new map, which would likely flip five Democratic-held House seats to Republican next year. A lower court blocked that map days earlier, based on a finding that the new boundaries were likely drawn on unconstitutional racial considerations.

Republicans currently hold a three-seat majority in the House and so five seats could be the difference between keeping or losing the speaker’s gavel.

The effort in Texas was initially a response to Trump’s push in several states to eke advantages out the mapmaking in several states to secure a Republican majority in the House. That effort set off an arms race between some red and blue states to redraw boundaries in order to maximize each party’s chances.

Had Texas officials justified the new map based purely on politics, they would almost certainly have had an easy time defending it in federal court. In a 2019 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts would no longer hear claims over partisan gerrymanders. Those machinations, the court said, are better left to the political branches.

Instead, the Texas case became wrapped up in race because of a letter from the Justice Department that urged the state to redraw its map not to help House Republicans but rather to change the racial composition of four districts the department described as “unconstitutional” and said “must be rectified immediately.” In a series of public statements, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, cited the DOJ letter – and concerns over race – as the reason for redrawing the lines.

US District Judge Jeffrey Brown, nominated to the bench by Trump during his first term, eviscerated the Justice Department letter in an opinion last week. States may consider race as one factor when they draw congressional lines, but if it’s the predominant issue driving the mapmaking then those boundaries face the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

“The governor,” Brown wrote for a 2-1 court, “explicitly directed the legislature to redistrict based on race.”

Texas filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court asking for immediate action, claiming that the ruling was causing “chaos” in the state. Congressional hopefuls in Texas must declare their candidacy by December 8. The state’s primaries are set for March.

“Campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas officials told the high court.

Soon after the emergency appeal was filed, Justice Samuel Alito temporarily blocked the lower court ruling with an “administrative” order that was intended to give the justices a few days to review the briefing before issuing a longer-term decision.

Six groups of plaintiffs who sued over the maps responded to Texas on Monday. One of them, the Texas NAACP, warned the Supreme Court against rushing into a decision for the state.

“Contrary to the state’s claims, the sky is not about to fall in Texas,” the group, which was represented in part by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told the justices.

Texas, the group claimed, could have avoided the complicated legal morass it found itself in “simply by following the law and not embracing DOJ’s directive to target minority voters of Texas in a mid-decade redistricting mere months before the deadlines.”

The legal battles over Trump’s mid-decade congressional redistricting strategy will continue to play out in coming weeks. Last week, the Justice Department sued officials in California over new maps meant to give Democrats in the Golden State an edge next year. A court is set to hear arguments in that case next month.

This story is developing and will be updated.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.