- A federal court panel blocked Texas’ new congressional map, ruling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
- The dissenting judge condemned the majority’s decision as “judicial activism” that disrupts the state’s electoral process.
- Texas officials plan an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the map was drawn for partisan gain, not racial discrimination.
- The legal battle stems from a mid-decade redistricting effort initiated after a Justice Department letter challenged certain districts.
- The ruling creates immediate uncertainty for the 2026 election cycle, forcing candidates to recalibrate their campaigns.
In a ruling with profound national implications, a federal court has thrown Texas’ upcoming congressional elections into disarray by striking down the state’s newly drawn political map. The 2-1 decision on November 18, which declared the redistricting plan an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, prompted a scorching dissent from the panel’s minority judge, who accused his colleagues of a “blatant exercise of judicial activism.” The immediate fallout has forced candidates to abandon their campaigns, while Texas Governor Greg Abbott vowed a swift appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal showdown that will influence the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The majority’s rationale: Race over politics
The majority opinion, penned by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, concluded that the Texas Legislature, when it redrew the state’s 38 congressional districts during a special session in August 2025, was improperly motivated by race. Judge Brown pointed to a July 7, 2025, letter from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division as the catalyst for the entire process. The letter asserted that four of Texas’ congressional districts were potentially unconstitutional because they were “coalition districts”—majority-non-White districts where no single racial group constituted a majority. The DOJ threatened legal action if the state did not redraw them.
According to the court’s majority, this DOJ directive caused Texas officials to explicitly frame their redistricting goal in racial terms. Governor Abbott, in adding redistricting to the special session agenda, “explicitly directed the Legislature to draw a new U.S. House map to resolve the DOJ’s concerns,” Judge Brown wrote. He noted that the governor and other senior lawmakers repeatedly “disavowed any partisan objective” in public statements, instead focusing on the racial composition of the districts. This evidence, the majority found, demonstrated that race was the predominant factor in the map’s design, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
A fiery dissent and the specter of judicial overreach
In a 104-page dissent filed on November 19, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit launched a comprehensive assault on the majority’s reasoning and timing. He labeled the ruling “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed,” arguing that it improperly second-guessed the legislature’s intent. Judge Smith contended that the “obvious reason” for the mid-decade redistricting was “partisan gain,” which the U.S. Supreme Court has previously held is a political question beyond the reach of federal courts.
Judge Smith also criticized the court for its haste, suggesting it should have waited for the Supreme Court to rule in an upcoming case, Louisiana v. Callais, which could reshape voting-rights jurisprudence. He argued that issuing an injunction so close to key election deadlines—candidate filing had already begun—”turns the Texas electoral and political landscape upside down.” The practical effect, he warned, was to create chaos for candidates and voters alike, all based on a legal rationale he believes is deeply flawed and likely to be overturned.
A national redistricting war escalates
The Texas case is not occurring in a vacuum; it represents one front in a broader national conflict over political mapmaking. Just weeks before the Texas ruling, California voters approved Proposition 50, a measure championed by Governor Gavin Newsom that authorized the state’s legislature to draw a new congressional map designed to counter the expected Republican gains from Texas’ redistricting. The U.S. Department of Justice has since sued California, alleging its plan is also an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Judge Smith explicitly referenced this parallel fight in his dissent, stating, “The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law.”
This tit-for-tat redistricting underscores the high political stakes. Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the U.S. House, and the Texas map was projected to increase the GOP’s share of the state’s congressional seats from 25 to as many as 30. The court’s decision to revert to the 2021 map for the 2026 election preserves the status quo, dealing a significant, if temporary, blow to national Republican strategy.
The immediate political fallout in Texas
The ruling has sent shockwaves through the Texas political establishment, forcing a rapid and dramatic recalibration of campaign strategies. Democratic incumbents who faced being drawn into the same districts or retirement now find themselves back in their familiar constituencies. For example, Austin Democrats Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett, who had been on a collision course under the new map, announced they would now run for reelection in their separate current districts. Meanwhile, Republican candidates who had filed to run in newly favorable districts now face the prospect of much more competitive races. The state’s appeal to the Supreme Court is now the only path to reinstating the 2025 map before the December 8 filing deadline.
A pivotal appeal looms for the Supreme Court
With Governor Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton announcing an immediate appeal, the focus now shifts to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state’s argument will likely hinge on the claim that the lower court erred in its factual findings and that the legislature’s primary intent was permissible partisan gain, not unconstitutional racial discrimination. The appeal presents the high court with an urgent and politically charged test of its voting-rights jurisprudence. The outcome will not only determine the electoral landscape in Texas for the next critical cycle but will also set a powerful precedent for the limits of judicial intervention in the inherently political process of redistricting, with ramifications that will echo across the country.
Sources for this article include:
TheEpochTimes.com
Justice.gov
TexasTribune.org
Read full article here