There's good news for Republicans on the congressional redistricting front Thursday evening, as the Supreme Court has now granted Texas' application to stay a divided three-judge district court panel ruling that enjoined the use of the newly drawn map.
Following the panel decision in mid-November, Texas appealed directly to the Supreme Court (as is permitted in redistricting cases), and the court swiftly issued an administrative (temporary) stay of the lower court decision.
ALSO SEE: SCOTUS Weighs in With Good News on Texas Redistricting Case
Of Course They Did: A Federal Court Just Annihilated the GOP's Texas Redistricting Plan
On Thursday, in a 6-3 ruling, the court formally stayed the panel decision pending its appeal on the merits. The practical effect of this is that the new congressional map for Texas will be in effect for the upcoming midterms.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has permitted Texas to keep its newly redistricted, GOP-favorable congressional map in 2026.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 4, 2025
Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissent.https://t.co/XCzbZBBhzH pic.twitter.com/1Wy2M4AU0i
The per curiam decision is brief and sets forth the rationale for staying the lower court decision thusly (emphasis mine):
Based on our preliminary evaluation of this case, Texas satisfies the traditional criteria for interim relief. See Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, 556 U. S.960 (2009) (per curiam). Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors. First, the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature. Contra, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024). Second, the District Court failed to draw a dispositive or near-dispositive adverse inference against respondents even though they did not produce a viable alternative map that met the State’s avowedly partisan goals. Contra, id., at 34–35.
Texas has also made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it. “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, 589 U. S. 423, 424 (2020) (per curiam). The District Court violated that rule here. The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.
Justice Samuel Alito issued a brief concurring statement in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined, in which he notes:
First, the dissent does not dispute—because it is indisputable—that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.
(We should note that the reference to the California map may spell trouble for the challenge mounted in that state by the California GOP.)
Alito also asserts that the district court applied the wrong legal standard, concluding with:
[W]hen the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted. Id., at 34; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S.234, 258 (2001). Although respondents’ experts could have easily produced such a map if that were possible, they did not, giving rise to a strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race. Neither the duration of the District Court’s hearing nor the length of its majority opinion provides an excuse for failing to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our case law.
Alito does not reference the salty lower court dissent authored by Judge Jerry E. Smith, but it's a fairly safe bet he's read it.
SEE ALSO: 'Fasten Your Seatbelts': We've Got the Dissent in the Texas Redistricting Case...and It's a Doozy
The 17-page dissent was authored by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication for clarity.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member