Supreme Court Clears Way for Texas Redistricting Maps Pushed by Trump
The Supreme Court cleared the way on Thursday for Texas lawmakers to use newly redrawn congressional maps favoring Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections.
The decision overturns, at least for now, a lower-court ruling that the new maps were likely an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. That decision had blocked lawmakers from using the maps in the midterms.
The Supreme Court’s order comes days before a Dec. 8 deadline for candidates to file to run for office in Texas. It marks a victory for Texas Republicans and for President Trump, who has pushed Republican-led states to revise their congressional maps to try to secure G.O.P. victories in the midterms.
The ruling also adds to the growing list of successes for the Trump administration before the justices, particularly on their emergency docket of cases heard without oral arguments, where the court’s orders are intended to be merely interim. Critics refer to it as the “shadow docket” and note the temporary decisions can have broad consequences.
In a five-paragraph order, the majority wrote that Texas was “likely to succeed on the merits of its claim” that a lower court had wrongly blocked the new maps. The trial court, the majority wrote, had “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”
The court’s order did not include a vote count, which is typical for rulings on such emergency applications. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a concurrence, adding that he joined the majority’s decision to allow the Texas maps. Two other conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, joined him.
In a 17-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the court’s two other liberals, argued that the majority had wrongly overturned a careful, 160-page lower court ruling, “based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.”
“We are a higher court than the district court, but we are not a better one when it comes to making such a fact-based decision,” she wrote.
Justice Kagan wrote that the Supreme Court’s order “disserves the millions of Texans whom the district court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race,” adding that “because this court’s precedents and our Constitution demand better, I respectfully dissent.”
The ruling outlines the state of play while litigation over the map continues through the lower courts — including potentially returning to the Supreme Court for further consideration. But given the deadline, the order means the map will be used for the key 2026 vote.
In recent months, Mr. Trump has pushed Republican-led states to swiftly redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 elections to try to fend off the possibility of Democrats winning control of the House. If Democrats gain the House majority, they could investigate Mr. Trump’s administration and otherwise stymie his agenda.
Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas cheered the decision, writing in a statement that the state was “paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state.”
Derrick Johnson, the president of the N.A.A.C.P., one of the groups that sued to challenge the Texas maps, said in a statement that the “move to redraw maps mid-decade is clearly racially motivated,” accusing Mr. Trump of “working with his supporters to rig the system to try and steal votes from Black and brown Americans.”
In a statement, Ken Martin, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the court’s decision was “wrong — both morally and legally.”
The midcycle redistricting push, outside the political norm, is at the center of Mr. Trump’s midterm strategy. It has set off similar redistricting efforts in Democratic-led states like California. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, championed a ballot measure to allow California to redraw its congressional map. The state’s voters passed the measure, clearing the way for Mr. Newsom’s plan.
Texas officials helped set off the national redistricting fight. In August, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law that redrew maps for the state’s 38 congressional districts, creating five new seats that favored Republicans.
Civil rights groups sued to challenge the map, asserting that lawmakers had engaged in racial gerrymandering, preventing minority voters from being able to select their candidates of choice.
In November, a divided panel of three federal judges in Texas blocked the state’s map from going into effect. In a 2-to-1 decision written by Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and a Trump appointee, the panel issued a preliminary finding that sided with the civil rights groups.
In an extraordinary dissent, Judge Jerry E. Smith, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and a Reagan appointee, railed at his colleagues, accusing Judge Brown of “pernicious judicial misbehavior.” Judge Smith accused the majority of publishing its decision before he had finished his dissent.
Judge Smith also argued that the decision to redraw the lines was “all politics, on both sides of the partisan aisle.” The Supreme Court has said lawmakers may draw maps for partisan advantage, provided they do not discriminate on the basis of race. He asserted that George Soros, the wealthy philanthropist known for championing left-leaning causes, was involved in challenging the maps.
On Nov. 21, Texas officials filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to step in and allow the state to use its new map.
In a brief to the court, Mr. Paxton argued that politics, not race, had motivated the change to congressional district lines.
“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” Mr. Paxton wrote, asking the court to move swiftly to block the lower court order. He asked the court to rule by Dec. 1, citing the candidate filing deadline.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who is assigned to handle emergency applications from that region of the country, stepped in later that day, temporary blocking the lower court ruling — in what is known as an administrative stay — and setting a swift briefing schedule, leading to Thursday’s ruling.
J. David Goodman and Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting.
Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting."
Supreme Court Clears Way for Texas Redistricting Maps Pushed by Trump - The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment