Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has warned that the Supreme Court’s latest move in a Texas redistricting dispute will result in what she calls a constitutional violation of voter rights.
The Court issued an unsigned order that pauses a 2–1 federal court ruling against Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s proposed congressional map. The stay keeps the new map in place for now, a development that could help Republicans gain as many as five additional U.S. House seats in next year’s midterm elections.
“This Court’s stay ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral districts because of their race,” Kagan wrote in her dissent. “And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”
Why It Matters
Texas had asked the Supreme Court for swift intervention ahead of the deadline for candidates to qualify for the March primary elections.
A temporary pause on the lower court’s decision was already in place while the justices considered the appeal. By granting the stay, the Court is allowing Texas to move forward with its redistricting plan—a significant victory for President Donald Trump and Republicans as they seek to hold on to a narrow House majority.
Critics of the map say it violates the federal Voting Rights Act by weakening the influence of minority voters in several newly drawn districts. Republicans counter that the plan actually creates one new Hispanic-majority district and two new Black-majority districts. Opponents respond that those majorities are fragile and depend on unusually high turnout from those communities.
What To Know
Writing for the Court’s three liberal justices, Kagan stressed that they believe the stay will lead directly to unconstitutional, race-based sorting of voters.
The order itself does not resolve whether the map ultimately complies with the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. Instead, it leaves the underlying legal question open, even as the challenged map goes into effect for the upcoming elections. That means the core issue—whether the plan unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of Black and Latino Texans—remains undecided.
Kagan pointed to the U.S. District Court’s earlier conclusion that “plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their racial-gerrymandering claim,” noting that partisan gain appeared to be the driving force behind the new district lines. “The desire for more Republican seats no doubt motivated the redistricting project: It was, as this Court has said, the officials’ ‘end goal,’” she wrote.
“Today’s order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race. Because this Court’s precedents and our Constitution demand better, I respectfully dissent,” Kagan concluded.
What People Are Saying
Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling, saying in part: “Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state. This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.”
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin sharply criticized the decision, calling the maps “rigged” and “racially gerrymandered.” He said: “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to allow Texas Republicans’ rigged, racially gerrymandered maps to go into effect is wrong — both morally and legally. Once again, the Supreme Court gave Trump exactly what he wanted: a rigged map to help Republicans avoid accountability in the midterms for turning their backs on the American people. But it will backfire.
Texas Democrats fought every step of the way against these unlawful, rigged congressional maps and sparked a national movement. Democrats are fighting back, responding in kind to even the playing field across the country. Republicans are about to be taught one valuable lesson: Don’t mess with Texas voters. The DNC stands committed to building power in Texas, no matter the maps in play, one election at a time.”
