Federal judges block Texas’ mid‑decade U.S. House map, citing racial gerrymandering — and scramble the 2026 battlefield
A three‑judge federal panel in El Paso on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, halted Texas from using its new congressional districts for the 2026 midterms, finding “substantial evidence” the map was drawn on the basis of race rather than permissible partisan aims. The 2–1 ruling orders Texas to revert to its 2021 map while litigation proceeds, a major blow to Republicans’ plan to net as many as five additional U.S. House seats next year. [1]
- What changed: Texas’ 2025 map is enjoined; the 2021 map is back for 2026 absent a higher‑court stay. [2]
- Why: Judges said the new plan likely amounts to an unconstitutional and VRA‑violative racial gerrymander. [3]
- Immediate stakes: Candidate filing (Nov 8–Dec 8) and March 3, 2026 primaries proceed under the 2021 lines unless a stay issues. [4]
- Next stop: Texas leaders vowed to appeal, eyeing emergency relief from the Supreme Court. [5]
What the court decided — and why it matters
The panel—District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown and Senior Judge David C. Guaderrama in the majority, with Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith dissenting—granted a preliminary injunction after a multi‑day hearing and trial. The opinion, quoted by multiple outlets, concluded: “Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.” The ruling distinguishes permissible partisan line‑drawing from impermissible racial targeting, and instructs the state to use the 2021 plan for 2026. [6]
“To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics.” — Majority opinion, as quoted in Associated Press reporting. [7]
Practically, the decision maintains the status quo as candidates file for 2026, but it also sets up a rapid appellate sprint where Texas will seek a stay from the Supreme Court to deploy its new lines. With the House currently close—news accounts put Republicans at roughly a 219–214 edge—map control in the nation’s second‑largest state could influence chamber control. [8]
How Texas got here: A mid‑decade redraw with national repercussions
Texas’ Republican legislature passed and Governor Greg Abbott signed a mid‑cycle congressional map in late August, an unusual move not triggered by new census data. The plan was part of a wider push encouraged by President Trump to shore up the House majority by engineering additional GOP seats in multiple states. [9]
The design targeted several Democratic‑held or minority‑opportunity districts—including seats anchored in Austin, Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston, and South Texas—while asserting that any racial effects reflected partisan goals. Civil‑rights plaintiffs, including LULAC and Black and Latino voters, argued the new map dismantled “coalition” districts and diluted minority voting strength to manufacture partisan advantage. [10]
Panel & posture
2–1 preliminary injunction; case proceeds on the merits while 2021 map governs 2026 absent a stay. [11]
Filing & primary dates
Texas filing window: Nov 8–Dec 8, 2025; Primary: March 3, 2026. [12]
Coalition districts
Plaintiffs said the 2025 plan slashed “coalition” districts; the opinion echoed concerns about race‑based design. [13]
National ripple
Part of a redistricting chess match spanning TX, MO, NC and a California counter‑move approved by voters. [14]
The legal frame: Partisan vs. racial gerrymandering
Key doctrine: The Supreme Court’s Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) bars federal courts from policing purely partisan gerrymanders, but race‑based line‑drawing remains unlawful under the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), reaffirmed in Allen v. Milligan (2023). [15]
| Question | Partisan gerrymander (Rucho) | Racial gerrymander / VRA §2 (Milligan and progeny) |
|---|---|---|
| Is it justiciable in federal court? | Generally no (political question). [16] | Yes—claims under Equal Protection and VRA §2 remain enforceable. [17] |
| Core inquiry | Partisan intent/effect alone is not policed federally. [18] | Whether race predominated or results deny/dilute minority vote; Gingles preconditions apply. [19] |
| Texas ruling’s thrust | State argued the 2025 plan was purely partisan. [20] | Court saw “substantial evidence” of race‑based line‑drawing; injunction issued. [21] |
Evidence that swayed the court
While the full opinion was not immediately posted publicly, reporting indicates the majority cited documentary and testimonial evidence suggesting race predominated—especially the dismantling or reconfiguration of several minority “coalition” districts and communications indicating race‑conscious goals. The Associated Press and other outlets quoted the court’s line that it was “much more than just politics.” [22]
Background reporting by the Texas Tribune underscored how “coalition” districts became a flashpoint, with recent Fifth Circuit precedent recognizing that Black and Hispanic voters may in some circumstances be considered together when assessing cohesion and remedy. [23]
Competing reactions
Gov. Greg Abbott and state officials signaled an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, casting the ruling as judicial interference with lawful partisan redistricting. [24]
Plaintiff groups, including LULAC, framed the decision as a restoring of voting‑rights guardrails against racial sorting, after months of warning that the mid‑cycle map “hijacked” minority representation. [25]
What it means for 2026 — and what to watch next 🗳️
- House arithmetic: Keeping the 2021 map averts a projected GOP gain of up to five seats in Texas, materially affecting the narrow House balance headed into 2026. [26]
- Candidate decisions: With the injunction in place, incumbents like Reps. Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar face fewer immediate disruptions to district lines as they decide filings before the Dec 8 deadline. [27]
- Appellate clock: Texas can seek a stay pending appeal. The Supreme Court could weigh Purcell‑style timing concerns, but here the order effectively preserves the status quo (2021 map) months before March 3 primaries. [28]
For Texas Republicans
The ruling undercuts a central strategy to expand the delegation and may redirect resources to defending competitive seats under the older lines. Expect an aggressive, expedited appeal. [29]
For Texas Democrats
A temporary reprieve that preserves several minority‑opportunity or coalition districts heading into filing; still, litigation risk remains if a stay issues. [30]
For voting‑rights law
The case tests how far lower courts will go to distinguish race from party in an era when those factors often correlate. It also spotlights the role of “coalition” districts after Milligan. [31]
National map wars
Texas is one front in a broader struggle featuring GOP‑led redraws in states like North Carolina and a controversial California counter‑move via ballot initiative; all are headed for courts. [32]
Methodology and sourcing
This article cross‑checks the panel’s order and immediate fallout via Associated Press and Reuters dispatches filed November 18, 2025, corroborated by the Washington Post’s identification of the panel and party margins. Background on the map’s design, coalition districts, and hearing schedule draws on Texas Tribune and Dallas Morning News reporting; election‑administration dates and filing windows come from the Texas Secretary of State. Landmark Supreme Court precedents are cited through LII’s Rucho resource and a Congressional Research Service brief on Allen v. Milligan. [33]
References
- Associated Press: “Federal judges block Texas from using its new US House map in the 2026 midterms” (Nov 18, 2025). [34]
- Reuters: “Federal judges block Texas from using new congressional map” (Nov 18, 2025). [35]
- Washington Post: “Court blocks GOP‑friendly map in Texas” (Nov 18, 2025). [36]
- Texas Tribune: Hearing and coalition‑district context (Sept–Oct 2025). [37]
- Dallas Morning News: Hearing preview and timing (Sept 30, 2025). [38]
- Texas Secretary of State: 2026 candidate filing period and election calendar. [39]
- Legal framework: Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) and Allen v. Milligan (2023). [40]
- LULAC statement on the 2025 Texas plan (advocacy perspective). [41]
Bottom line
The El Paso panel’s injunction doesn’t end the fight—it resets the board. Texas’ 2025 map is sidelined, for now; the 2021 map governs unless the Supreme Court intervenes. The ruling reinforces that even in a post‑Rucho world, race‑driven districting triggers federal scrutiny. The next few weeks—before the December 8 filing deadline—will determine whether 2026 runs on the old lines or whether Texas secures a late‑year stay that revives its controversial map. 📊⚖️ [42]
Comments
0 commentsJoin the discussion below.