Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens
The Supreme Court blocked a lower court's ruling that had found Texas's new congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, allowing the map to be used in the 2026 midterm elections while an appeal proceeds.
The decision is temporary and leaves the underlying constitutional question — whether Texas drew district lines primarily based on race to boost Republican representation — to be resolved in a full appeal.
“Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors.”
The Court's core finding supporting the emergency stay, identifying why Texas was likely to win its appeal.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court in Texas found the new map was a racial gerrymander and enjoined its use; Texas applied to Justice Alito, who referred the application to the full Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
In 2025, Texas redrew its congressional map mid-decade after the Trump Administration's Justice Department sent a letter claiming certain districts — where two or more minority groups combined to form a majority — were legally problematic. The new map dismantled those "coalition districts," created majority-single-race minority districts by the slimmest possible margins, and added five more Republican-leaning seats. A group of voters sued, arguing that race, not just partisan politics, was the primary driver of where the new lines were drawn.
The question before the Court
Should Texas's new congressional map be allowed to govern the 2026 elections while courts decide whether the legislature drew district lines mainly along racial lines?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court granted Texas's request to pause the lower court's order blocking the new map. After a preliminary review, the Court found Texas was likely to win its appeal because the district court appeared to make at least two significant legal errors: it failed to give the legislature the benefit of the doubt when weighing ambiguous evidence, and it failed to penalize the challengers sufficiently for not producing an alternative map demonstrating that the state's partisan goals could have been achieved without drawing lines based on race.
The Court also found that Texas would suffer serious harm without a stay, that the balance of interests favored relief, and that courts generally should not disrupt election rules while a campaign is already underway. This order does not decide whether the map is constitutional — that question awaits a full appeal.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Millions of Texas voters will be placed in congressional districts that a federal court found were drawn based on their race, at least through the 2026 elections. The outcome could shape which party controls key U.S. House seats. The ruling also signals that the Court may be skeptical of lower-court rulings that second-guess state redistricting without requiring challengers to produce alternative maps showing the state's goals could be met without using race.
What changes now
Texas's new congressional map takes effect for the 2026 elections unless the stay is later lifted. If Texas files a timely notice of appeal and jurisdictional statement with the Supreme Court, the stay remains in place pending the Court's final decision on the appeal. If the Court ultimately affirms the district court's finding that the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, or if the appeal is dismissed, the stay ends automatically and the earlier, blocked map would be reinstated.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether Texas's map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — the Court called its review "preliminary." It also does not address the congressional maps recently enacted in California, North Carolina, or any other state. A final ruling awaits a full appeal.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Separate writings (3). Justice Alito (author of a concurrence), joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch.
Dissent (3). Justice Kagan (author), joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson.
Concurrence — Justice Alito
Justice Alito (joined by Thomas and Gorsuch) agreed with granting the stay and emphasized two points he found decisive: first, the partisan motive behind Texas's redistricting was undisputed; second, the district court applied legally incorrect standards, which means the normally deferential clear-error standard of review does not protect its findings. He stressed that challengers who fail to produce an alternative map that meets the state's partisan goals without racial sorting are essentially conceding that the state's racial explanation is implausible, and that no amount of hearing length or opinion length excuses applying the wrong legal standards.
Dissent — Justice Kagan
Justice Kagan (joined by Sotomayor and Jackson) argued the Court had no valid basis to grant the stay. After a nine-day trial with 23 witnesses and thousands of exhibits, the district court reached a factual finding — that race predominantly drove Texas's line-drawing — that was at minimum plausible, which under the clear-error standard is all that is required for it to stand. She also rejected the majority's invocation of the Purcell 'eve of election' principle, noting that Election Day was eleven months away and that a rushed legislative redistricting six months before the primary was the state's own doing. She accused the majority of improperly substituting its own reading of a cold paper record for the trial court's firsthand factfinding. Read the full dissent →
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the standard four-factor test for an emergency stay, which asks: how likely is the applicant to win its appeal, will it suffer serious harm without a pause, will the other side be seriously harmed by a pause, and where does the broader public interest lie?
- On the first factor — likelihood of success on appeal — the Court identified two specific legal errors it believed the district court made under the framework set out in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024), the controlling Supreme Court precedent for racial-gerrymandering claims. First, the district court failed to presume legislative good faith by reading ambiguous evidence against the legislature rather than in its favor. Second, it failed to draw a strong enough adverse inference against the challengers for not submitting an alternative map showing the state's partisan goals could be reached without using race — a near-fatal omission under Alexander.
- On irreparable harm, the Court found that disrupting an active primary campaign by switching maps mid-cycle would cause serious and immediate harm to the state's ability to administer the 2026 elections with certainty and predictability.
- The Court applied the principle — drawn from Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (2020) — that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter election rules on the eve of an election, and found the district court had violated that rule by inserting itself into an ongoing primary campaign, upsetting the federal-state balance in elections.
- With all four stay factors favoring Texas, the Court paused the district court's injunction pending a timely appeal, leaving the constitutional question about racial predominance to be resolved after full briefing and argument.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (602 U. S. 1)
Confirmed as the controlling framework governing how courts evaluate racial-gerrymandering claims, including the alternative-map requirement.
Reaffirms Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (589 U. S. 423)
Reaffirmed the rule that courts should not change election rules on the eve of an election.