Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued a temporary pause on a lower court’s order that aimed to prevent Texas from implementing its new congressional map.
This surprising move by Alito has left many wondering, as he has yet to provide any details on why he decided to halt the decision, which serves as a ‘time out’ for the current situation. This allows the justices more time to delve into the complexities of the case without reflecting on the merits just yet.
The unprecedented order from Alito came in quick succession; it was less than an hour after Texas Governor Greg Abbott, along with state attorneys, filed an urgent petition to the Supreme Court to maintain the contentious mid-decade redistricting plan. This plan is reportedly aimed at adding five more Republican seats to the House of Representatives.
Earlier this week, the lower court found that there was “substantial evidence” of potential racial gerrymandering in Texas’s newly drawn map, basing conclusions on a Justice Department memo that pointed out racially biased motivations.
A closer look at the 2019 ruling that paved the way for Texas’s congressional map redraw and why federal judges are now wary: ANALYSIS
In its court filing, Texas expressed harsh criticism of the majority opinion authored by Judge Jeffrey Brown, who was appointed by Trump. Texas claims it inaccurately assumed the legislature was acting in bad faith and didn’t sufficiently separate racial and political concerns when creating the map.
Furthermore, the state contends that Judge Brown should not have issued a ruling at this late stage, considering the upcoming 2026 elections, with candidate filings to take place soon on December 8.
“The disruption caused by such a ruling is clear: campaigns are already in motion, candidates have gathered signatures and filed the necessary documents for the 2025 map, and early voting for the primaries on March 3, 2026, is fast approaching—just 91 days away,” Texas claimed in its arguments.
They’re asking the justices to impose a stay by December 1, ensuring the 2025 map remains in use during the midterms.
The court has requested the plaintiffs to respond by Monday at 5 p.m.
This emergency application follows a recently issued 160-page verdict from a lower court that labeled Texas Republicans’ mid-decade redistricting attempts as blatant racial gerrymandering, officially invalidating their efforts.
Judge Brown’s order issued earlier this week halted Texas from using its newly proposed congressional map for the 2026 midterms, as it concluded “substantial evidence demonstrated that Texas racially gerrymandered the new map.”
The Texas redistricting skirmish heats up, leading to a judge dissenting no fewer than 15 times.
This decision has sparked unrest in a nationwide battle over redistricting initiated during Donald Trump’s presidency—efforts began as part of a strategy to maintain Republican dominance in the closely contested House.
Judge Brown’s opinion noted that this re-drawing of districts, typically only seen once every decade, primarily occurred in response to explicit requests from the Trump administration concerning the racial demographics of four districts held by Democrats.
Equity in Representation: Federal legal standards and Supreme Court decisions determine that race cannot be the primary factor in map making since doing so could deliberately undermine the rights of minority voters.
In a dissent published the next day, Judge Jerry E. Smith took aim at Brown, suggesting he aligned himself with left-leaning billionaires like George Soros and California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, while pushing back on the criticism of Texas’s redistricting as purely a partisan legal practice.
“The main reason for redistricting mid-cycle, of course, lies in gaining partisan advantage,” argued Smith, emphasizing that the Supreme Court has maintained the principle that courts should refrain from editing the political process involved in redistricting.
