This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
The Department of Justice on Monday backed the state of Texas in its redistricting dispute, arguing that the new congressional map approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature does not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling, for now, clears the way for the Lone Star State to implement its newly redrawn maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.
In an amicus brief, Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, said the lower court erred in blocking the map from taking effect. He urged the Supreme Court to intervene and overturn the ruling. Sauer wrote in his filing: “This is not a close case.”
Sauer argued that the lower court misinterpreted the rationale behind the Legislature’s decision to adjust five congressional districts in a way that favored Republicans. He said the changes were driven by political considerations, not race, and therefore did not violate federal voting laws or the Constitution.
“There is overwhelming evidence — both direct and circumstantial — of partisan objectives, and any inference that the State inexplicably chose to use racial means is implausible,” Sauer wrote.
Sauer also defended a letter sent earlier this year by Civil Rights Division chief Harmeet Dhillon, in which the Justice Department urged Texas to address “coalition districts” that tend to favor Democrats. Opponents of the map have cited the letter as evidence of racial motivations behind the redistricting process.
Shortly after the letter was issued, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, added redistricting to the Legislature’s agenda, prompting a dramatic walkout in which state Democrats temporarily left the state in protest.
The lower court “misinterpreted the letter’s meaning; and more importantly, the court misunderstood the letter’s significance to the legislature’s adoption of the 2025 map,” Sauer argued.
The plaintiffs involved in the case, consisting of various voting and immigrant rights organizations, contended that Dhillon’s letter called for the disbanding of the coalition districts and the concentration of Black and Latino voters into different districts.
“The DOJ letter, riddled with legal and factual errors, incorrectly asserted that these districts were ‘unconstitutional coalition districts’ that Texas was required to ‘rectify’ by changing their racial makeup,” the plaintiffs argued in their legal filing.
Texas’ mid-cycle redistricting battle is one of several conflicts emerging nationwide as President Donald Trump faces the possibility of a less favorable Republican House map in 2026. In California, voters approved a last-minute ballot measure that would offset the five Republican gains made in Texas. Utah adopted a new map that benefits Democrats, while Virginia has begun steps toward another redrawing process that would also benefit Democrats.
Louisiana’s map, which favors the GOP, is currently awaiting review by the Supreme Court. Missouri also underwent redistricting, adding a GOP-favored seat, and Indiana’s legislature is considering the same thing next month, which would benefit Republicans.
The Department of Justice recently filed suit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, contending that the state’s new redistricting plan was unconstitutionally driven by race — a position that contrasts with its stance in the Texas case, Fox News reported.
Texas has asked the Supreme Court to stay last week’s 2–1 ruling by a three-judge panel in the Western District of Texas, which found that race played an impermissibly significant role in the Legislature’s mid-cycle redraw.
“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” Texas’ attorneys argued in their request.
In a sharply worded dissent, U.S. District Judge Jerry Brown, a Reagan appointee, criticized the three-judge panel’s ruling, calling it the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he had encountered during his career. He described the majority’s opinion as a “work of fiction.”
Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay of the panel’s ruling, and the full Supreme Court could issue a more definitive decision on the map at any time.
Texas attorneys have also urged the Court to block the lower court’s order on the grounds that it disrupts the 2026 midterm election cycle, noting that candidates have already begun filing to run under the newly enacted map.
