Texas has filed a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the federal redistricting case that attempted to undermine the state legislature’s newly-enacted congressional map that was passed as part of a partisan redistricting.
This comes after the Court already issued an emergency stay—pending appeal—that blocked the district court order that would have forced the state to revert to the 2021 congressional map. Thus, the 2026 midterm elections are proceeding under the new map that secured five new Republican-leaning seats.
Background
After the Texas Legislature successfully completed its 2025 partisan redistricting effort, the new congressional map was immediately subject to cries of racial discrimination by Democrat litigators—the same litigators who had been challenging the 2021 map on the same grounds.
The case was heard by a three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in El Paso. Democrat plaintiffs hoped to block Republicans’ new map from taking effect before the 2026 midterm elections, which in Texas begin with March primaries.
The trial lasted nine days.
In a 2-1 decision released more than a month later, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction that blocked the new map from enforcement, reverting to the 2021 map that better favored Democrats.
The November 18 order, written by Trump-appointee Judge Jeffrey Brown, found that the map was drawn with race as the “predominant factor”—despite the mapdrawer Adam Kincaid having repeatedly testified otherwise.
Judge Jerry Smith—a Reagan-appointee—later released a scathing dissent, slamming Brown for judicial misconduct. He claims that Brown cut him out of the process and intentionally misrepresented or ignored the facts of the case to come to the conclusion he wanted, as a judicial activist.
The State immediately appealed the panel’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On December 4, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the district court order, allowing for the new map to be used for the 2026 midterm election, pending the timely filing of a full appeal.
The stay contended that the State defendants are likely to succeed on the merits because the district court “committed at least two serious errors.” First, the district court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith. Second, the district court failed to produce an alternative map, as is required by controlling precedent from Alexander v. South Carolina.
These were not the only issues acknowledged by the Court.
The Direct Appeal
The State of Texas recently filed its jurisdictional statement with the Supreme Court, constituting the official filing of its direct appeal. The statement describes various errors made by the district court that justify a reversal of Judge Brown’s decision.
In the filing, the State presents five questions to the court:
1. Did the district court err by refusing to find that the Plaintiffs’ failure to produce an alternative map hurt their case?
2. Did the district court err by failing to apply the presumption of legislative good faith?
3. Did the district court err by finding direct evidence of racial discrimination?
4. Did the district court err by finding circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination and failing to disentangle race from politics?
5. Did the district court err in applying the remaining preliminary-injunction factors, including by entering an injunction directing the state to use the repealed 2021 map?
The State then proceeded to ridicule the district court’s reasoning.
“The district court’s conclusion blinks reality. It rests on the premise that the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature chose not to adopt a map that maximized achievement of political goals but instead adopted a map that sacrificed political opportunity in favor of racial discrimination, in a highly polarized political environment with a razor-thin Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives,” reads the filing. “To state such a conclusion is to falsify it.”
The issuance of a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy with an “especially stringent” evidentiary burden. The State believes the district court did not apply the correct burden of proof in issuing the injunction.
On this basis, the State is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision.
What Happens Next
Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court and the reasoning presented in the Court’s stay, it is widely expected that the justices will indeed reverse the district court decision.
Following the passage of Texas’ 2025 congressional map, California undertook a partisan redistricting effort of its own. Through the passage of Proposition 50, California flipped five congressional seats from Republican to Democrat, effectively canceling out Texas’ efforts nationally.
However, California’s redistricting effort also finds itself before the Supreme Court. The California GOP and the DOJ recently appealed a district court decision that upheld the state’s new map.
While Texas had a mapdrawer who repeatedly disavowed any use of race data, California’s mapdrawer explicitly admittedto drawing districts based on race.
An in-depth analysis of Texas’ redistricting litigation can be found here.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: [email protected].
