In yet another blow to the Trump administration’s ongoing redistricting pressure campaign, a federal court on Tuesday enjoined the use of Texas’ new map and ordered it to use its previous map for the 2026 election. In his ruling, District Judge Jeff Brown, who is a 2019 Trump appointee, said that the map is racially gerrymandered.
“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map,” Brown wrote. “But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
While the Supreme Court has allowed political gerrymandering and has whittled down the definition of racial gerrymandering, the latter is still, at least in theory, illegal.
The case was heard by a panel of three federal judges who split 2-1, with Brown and U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee, siding with the civil rights groups who challenged the map.
The court has ordered the state to instead use a map that was approved in 2021 and used in the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Although Texas Governor Greg Abbott swiftly said he would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, Tuesday’s ruling is a significant blow to the Trump administration’s gerrymandering blitz, which has, in recent weeks, faced a series of significant setbacks in red states across the country.
“This is a well-documented, comprehensive decision joined by two federal judges — one appointed by Obama and one appointed by Trump himself,” David Becker, a former DOJ lawyer and the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, told TPM. “Key to the decision were the statements and comments made by Trump and his DOJ, as they once again appear to have undermined their own litigation and credibility with the courts.”
In its order, the court also referenced a letter from the Justice Department to Texas
lawmakers that has been used as justification for the new map. The court, however, explained why the letter actually proves that the map is indeed racially gerrymandered.
“The DOJ Letter is equally notable for what it doesn’t include: any mention of partisanship, “ the order reads. “Had the Trump Administration sent Texas a letter urging the State to redraw its congressional map to improve the performance of Republican candidates, the Plaintiff Groups would then face a much greater burden to show that race—rather than partisanship—was the driving force behind the 2025 Map.”
“But nothing in the DOJ Letter is couched in terms of partisan politics. The letter instead commands Texas to change four districts for one reason and one reason alone: the racial demographics of the voters who live there.”
The map, which was signed into law by Abbot in August, would have flipped five Democratic held congressional seats, giving Republicans control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional seats.
In direct response to Abbot’s approval of Texas’s new map, Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats pushed forward a ballot measure known as Proposition 50 to offset Abbot’s gerrymandering success. Earlier this month, California voters approved Proposition 50, which will now give Democrats an advantage in some Republican-led and swing districts in the state.
For months now, the Trump administration has been pressuring Republican states to engage in highly unusual mid-cycle redistricting as a way to predetermine the outcome of the midterm elections and maintain his party’s control of the U.S. House.
Despite early wins in North Carolina and Missouri, the future success of the campaign is bleak.
Just last week, Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray announced that there are not enough votes to pass new maps and that lawmakers would not convene a special session.
And earlier this month, a Utah judge rejected a revised Republican-favoring map. Similarly, in Kansas, GOP House Speaker Dan Hawkins announced on Election Night that Republicans did not have sufficient votes to approve a new map.
Well, that’s going to make things interesting. There was already the potential for the Texas map to swing back against Republicans who assumed the Hispanic vote percentage in 2024 was a permanent thing, and now they may have that on top of losing their gerrymandering, a possible net loss of seats. Serves them right of course, but it’s neat to see justice do the right thing quickly.
The question now is if CA goes ahead with their redistricting…the case isn’t over until the Supreme Court rules, and that will take some time, so CA won’t let up now. There is a real chance that the process goes past the deadline CA has to set the districts, so if it goes against Texas in the courts they may have doubly screwed themselves. This alone may end up enough to swing the House even if there’s not a blue wave. There is a lawsuit against CA, but it’s not likely to succeed as the voters made the choice to redistrict and the redistricting was not nearly as extreme as it could have been so should easily pass legal muster.
“But, voting while black or brown is ALSO illegal!”
I expect CA to continue with its redistricting effort - it was, after all, mandated by a popular referendum. They will need to do it because no one can count on the Supreme Court not to intervene, despite its own Purcell doctrine. Filing closes for 2026 primaries December 8 - this year.
My expectations will be that CA has new maps - assuming they survive the ill-fated GOP lawsuit - but the there will be a trigger on them based on the Texas’ case appeals. Regardless, the CA maps need to be in place before the primaries. (Filing deadline in March 6, 2026)
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/2026-candidate-filing-deadlines
Virginia is working on a mid-decade redistricting plan, too, though they are up against some tough deadlines to do it. It requires a constitutional amendment, which, in turn, requires it to be passed by two different sessions of the legislature with an election in between, and then it has to be passed by the full electorate in a referendum. (Details in the Virginia Mercury here.)
I had to laugh at Gov. Fleece Vest’s objection when the legislature hurriedly passed this through step one in late October:
How many times have we seen Republicans play that sort of hardball? But they cry “foul” when the tables are turned.
The Nov 4 election greatly increased Democratic majorities in both houses, so the proposal should make it through the next legislative session, too. And then it will be up to the state’s voters.
This is hilarious if the end result is TX faceplants and CA change is locked in.
There was trigger language in the original CA Prop 50 that it’d only take effect if TX gerrymandered, but this was take out because TX redistricted before CA voted, so the CA change should be locked in.
FAFO I believe is the precise term.