The Supreme Court has temporarily cleared the way for Texas to use its newly drawn congressional map in the 2026 midterms by pausing a lower court ruling that found the plan relied on race rather than politics. A short, unsigned order halted the panel decision while the state pursues an appeal, and a narrow majority signaled concern about federal judges changing election rules close to campaigns. The move sets the contested map in place for now and has been hailed by Republican leaders as a win for state authority and election stability.
The immediate result is practical: candidates in Texas can file under the new boundaries and campaigns can proceed without the chaos of last-minute redraws. That stability matters in a state where a few districts can swing control of the U.S. House. From a Republican viewpoint, the Court’s intervention respected the idea that legislatures—not courts—should make tough political decisions about maps unless clear legal errors appear.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, flagged legal mistakes they saw in the lower court’s handling of the case, saying challengers never produced a workable alternative map. The majority emphasized that federal judges should avoid upending election rules as campaigns are underway, warning that disruptive orders so close to an election season would create needless confusion. That reasoning plays to a conservative judicial philosophy favoring deference to state legislatures and caution before courts alter electoral mechanics.
Not everyone agreed. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing the district court conducted an exhaustive review and properly found that race drove the redrawing. The dissent accused the majority of sidestepping factual findings and allowing a potentially unconstitutional map to stand for an election cycle. This split reinforces how high the stakes are: the Court’s choice to pause the lower ruling keeps the map intact while the legal fight continues.
Texas officials argued the three-judge panel misread the evidence and failed to presume lawmakers acted in good faith. The state also stressed that challengers needed to present an alternative map that achieved the same political aims without relying on race, a showing the federal panel said challengers did not meet. On balance, the Supreme Court’s stay reflects skepticism about overturning legislative work when competing maps and complicated evidence are in play.
Attorney General Ken Paxton framed the decision as a clear victory. “In the face of Democrats’ attempt to abuse the judicial system to steal the U.S. House, I have defended Texas’s fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans. The Big Beautiful Map will be in effect for 2026,” Paxton said. “Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state. This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.”
The pause came after a federal panel originally found the map likely amounted to a racial gerrymander, prompting an emergency appeal from state leaders. Governor Greg Abbott and other Republicans pushed quickly to keep the map in place, arguing that the legislature followed lawful procedures and that courts should not rewrite politics. That political context matters: national control of the House could be affected by a handful of Texas seats, so the stakes are both legal and strategic.
The practical effect of the Supreme Court’s order is straightforward: unless the Court later rules otherwise, the contested boundaries are expected to govern the 2026 races. Candidates can prepare, parties can plan, and voters will see the districts that lawmakers approved. For conservatives who favor legislative control over electoral design, the outcome underscores the importance of defending maps through the courts when necessary.
Looking ahead, Texas will press its appeal and the Supreme Court will eventually weigh the merits. Meanwhile the stay prevents an immediate upheaval of election rules and buys time for a final decision. The episode highlights a broader legal question about where the line should be drawn between correcting unconstitutional maps and preserving electoral stability when litigation comes late in the cycle.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK – APRIL 30: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton arrives to court during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 30, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Curtis Means-Pool/Getty Images)
