• Federal court finds substantial evidence of racial discrimination in GOP redistricting effort
• Civil rights groups representing Black and Hispanic voters prevail after nine-day trial
• Supreme Court temporarily restores controversial map while appeal proceeds

EL PASO, TX (TDR) — A federal court ruling has thrown a major wrench into Republican plans to redraw congressional boundaries in Texas, with judges finding substantial evidence that the state’s new map illegally targeted minority voters to boost GOP representation.

Texas Congressional Map Draws Bipartisan Judicial Rebuke

The three-judge panel issued its decision following a nine-day trial in El Paso, where civil rights organizations argued that the map diminished the voting power of Black and Hispanic Texans in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion, delivered a pointed assessment of the redistricting effort.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The panel featured Brown along with U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee who joined the majority. U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, dissented from the ruling and accused the majority of judicial activism.

Republican Strategy Backfires on Texas Congressional Map

The contested map emerged from a special legislative session called by Governor Greg Abbott this summer at the urging of President Donald Trump. Republicans hoped the redrawn boundaries would yield control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts, up from the 25 they currently hold.

The effort targeted five Democratic-held seats, all representing coalition districts with majority-minority populations. Democratic representatives Marc Veasey, Greg Casar, Lloyd Doggett, Julie Johnson, and Al Green faced potential elimination of their districts under the new lines.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Brown’s opinion highlighted troubling discrepancies in testimony from key witnesses, including mapmaker Adam Kincaid and State Senator Phil King, who led the Senate’s redistricting committee. The judge found it “extremely unlikely” that Kincaid could have drawn districts with such specific racial compositions purely by chance while claiming to be blind to race.

Justice Department Letter Complicates Texas Congressional Map Defense

The ruling scrutinized a July letter from Harmeet Dhillon, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, which criticized existing coalition districts as unconstitutional. Abbott cited this letter when calling the special session, explicitly directing legislators to address the department’s concerns.

Brown eviscerated the letter in his decision, calling it challenging to unpack because it contained numerous factual, legal, and typographical errors. The judge noted that even attorneys from the Texas Attorney General’s office described it as legally unsound and ham-fisted.

This created what University of Texas political scientist Josh Blank called a difficult spot for lawmakers. Republicans had spent years denying any use of race in drawing maps, yet the Justice Department letter and Abbott’s response made race an explicit consideration.

Supreme Court Intervenes on Texas Congressional Map

Just days after the ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an administrative stay requested by Texas, temporarily restoring the 2025 map while justices consider the appeal. Justice Samuel Alito signed the order, which remains in effect as candidates approach the December 8 filing deadline for the March primary.

Attorney General Ken Paxton called the original ruling clearly erroneous and defended what he termed the “Big Beautiful Map” as entirely legal. He argued the redistricting was conducted purely for partisan purposes, which the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot block.

However, partisan gerrymandering often overlaps with racial gerrymandering, which remains illegal. The plaintiffs successfully argued that Texas crossed that constitutional line by targeting minority communities specifically.

National Implications Extend Beyond Texas Congressional Map

The Texas case represents a centerpiece of a nationwide redistricting battle that has erupted between red and blue states. Missouri and North Carolina followed Texas with their own Republican-friendly maps, while California voters approved a ballot initiative designed to give Democrats additional seats in response.

Democratic leaders praised the court ruling as validation of their concerns. Texas Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher stated plainly that race was always a driving factor intended to diminish the electoral impact of minority Texans.

The outcome now rests with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which will determine whether Texas can proceed with its redrawn boundaries for the 2026 midterms. Their decision could reshape not only Texas politics but the national balance of power in Congress.

Will the Supreme Court’s conservative majority uphold voting rights protections or allow states broader latitude in pursuing partisan redistricting that disproportionately affects minority communities?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10