What happened
The U.S. Supreme Court stayed a lower-court order blocking Texas from using its new congressional map in the 2026 elections, allowing the state’s mid-decade redistricting plan to remain in place while the justices consider the case.
The court said, based on its preliminary review, that “Texas is likely to succeed on the merits” of its challenge to the district court’s injunction. The dispute arose after challengers argued Texas’ new map was predominantly racial, and a divided three-judge district court agreed and enjoined use of the map.
The order faults the district court on two fronts. The court said the district court likely erred by construing ambiguous evidence against the Legislature despite the presumption of legislative good faith, and by not drawing a stronger adverse inference from the challengers’ failure to offer an alternative map that met Texas’ partisan goals.
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote separately that the impetus for the Texas map was partisan advantage and that challengers must disentangle race and politics when those factors correlate. In his view, the absence of a viable alternative map supported Texas’ position that the new lines were based on partisanship, not race.
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, saying the district court had conducted a nine-day hearing, reviewed thousands of exhibits and found Texas largely divided citizens by race in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Kagan argued the majority disregarded clear-error review and substituted its view of a paper record for the trial court’s factfinding.
The stay remains in effect if Texas timely files appeal papers and continues until the Supreme Court acts on the appeal, unless the appeal is dismissed or the judgment is affirmed. The immediate practical effect, according to the dissent, is that Texas’ new map will govern next year’s House elections.