Federal court blocks newly drawn congressional map, ruling it likely violates constitutional protections against racial gerrymandering
Texas cannot use its newly drawn congressional map in next year’s midterm elections after a federal court ruled Tuesday that the plan likely constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision represents a significant setback for President Donald Trump and Republicans who had positioned Texas as the centerpiece of a national redistricting campaign ahead of the 2026 contests.
The three-judge panel ordered Texas to revert to its previous congressional map enacted following the 2020 census. State officials immediately announced plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up what could become a pivotal case affecting congressional power dynamics nationwide.
The stakes for congressional control
With House Republicans currently holding only a three-seat majority, the outcome carries enormous implications for which party controls the chamber after next year’s elections. The blocked Texas map had been designed to help Republicans flip five Democratic-held House seats, potentially cementing GOP control even if Democrats make gains elsewhere.
The Texas effort triggered a cascade of redistricting activity across the country. California Democrats launched their own remapping initiative in direct response, creating a plan aimed at flipping five Republican-held seats in the Golden State. The Justice Department has since challenged California’s approach as well, arguing that racial considerations improperly influenced what was presented as purely partisan redistricting.
An unexpected author delivers the blow
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, who Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2019, authored the majority opinion finding that challengers would likely prove at trial that Texas engaged in racial gerrymandering. Obama appointee David Guaderrama joined Brown in the 2-1 decision, while Reagan appointee Jerry Smith dissented.
Brown’s background makes his ruling particularly noteworthy. Before joining the federal judiciary, he served nearly two decades as a state judge, including six years on the Texas Supreme Court. Governor Greg Abbott had celebrated Brown’s 2019 appointment, noting that the judge began his career as Abbott’s law clerk when the governor himself served on the state Supreme Court.
A controversial Justice Department letter
The ruling centers heavily on correspondence the Trump administration sent to Texas in July. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the civil rights division at the Department of Justice, warned state officials about potential legal action regarding coalition districts. These districts feature non-White majorities but no single racial group comprises a majority of residents.
Abbott cited this letter when adding redistricting to a special legislative session, explicitly directing lawmakers to address the Justice Department’s concerns. Brown determined this directive amounted to instructing the legislature to redistrict based on race, which violates constitutional protections.
The judge sharply criticized the Justice Department’s letter in his decision, describing it as challenging to unpack due to numerous factual, legal and typographical errors. Brown noted that even attorneys working for the Texas Attorney General, who claims political alignment with the Trump administration, characterized the correspondence as legally unsound, baseless, erroneous, ham-fisted and messy.
The map’s transformation of coalition districts
The legislature’s final product achieved nearly all racial objectives the Justice Department demanded, according to Brown’s analysis. Lawmakers dismantled and left unrecognizable not only the districts the Justice Department identified but also several other coalition districts throughout the state. Brown emphasized that while federal civil rights law doesn’t require states to draw coalition districts, it doesn’t prohibit them either, and legislatures cannot lawfully target such districts for destruction.
Political reactions split sharply
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton described the ruling as another attempt by the radical left to undermine the will of the people, characterizing the map as entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi expressed strong disagreement with the decision, asserting Texas drew its map the right way for the right reasons.
Abbott criticized the ruling without naming Brown specifically, calling it clearly erroneous and claiming it undermines authority the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Texas Legislature. Texas House Democrats who fought the redistricting effort, including by leaving the state to delay passage, celebrated the outcome as stopping one of the most brazen attempts to steal democracy that Texas has ever seen.
Broader implications for redistricting battles
Republican-drawn maps across four states have targeted a total of nine Democratic-held seats to date, with six of those seats held by Black or Latino lawmakers. Critics argue these efforts improperly dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minorities while Republicans hunt for partisan advantages.
The Texas ruling arrives as the Supreme Court weighs a Louisiana case that could fundamentally alter redistricting law. That litigation questions whether states can consider race when attempting to fix discrimination, potentially threatening the ability to bring racial gerrymandering challenges under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Information sourced from CNN