WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2026 — A federal court initially blocked Texas from using its new congressional map for the 2026 midterms, but the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in December 2025, granting a stay that lets Republicans proceed with the mid-decade redraw pushed by President Donald J. Trump. The ruling has revived Republican hopes of solidifying their House majority, while Democrats and voting-rights groups warn it entrenches partisan advantage and raises racial-gerrymandering concerns.

The episode began in August 2025 when the Texas Legislature, at Mr. Trump’s urging, approved a mid-decade redistricting plan aimed at giving Republicans up to five additional U.S. House seats in 2026. The map targeted Democratic-leaning areas, particularly in urban and border regions, to offset potential losses elsewhere. Lawsuits quickly followed from groups including LULAC, MALDEF and the National Redistricting Foundation, alleging unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and violations of the Voting Rights Act.

On Nov. 18, 2025, a three-judge federal panel in the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the new lines, ruling they were drawn with discriminatory intent and ordering the state to use the 2021 maps instead. The decision was hailed by Democrats as a major setback for the GOP’s national strategy to lock in House control ahead of midterms.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which on Dec. 4, 2025, granted a stay in a 6-3 order, allowing the new map to take effect pending full litigation. The majority did not explain its reasoning, but the action effectively reversed the lower-court block for now. MALDEF and other challengers expressed disappointment, vowing to continue the fight on the merits.

The Texas case fits into a broader redistricting arms race. California voters approved Proposition 50 in November 2025, enabling lawmakers to draw new congressional lines that could favor Democrats and counter Texas gains. Republicans asked the Supreme Court to block those maps, accusing California of racial gerrymandering, but the request was denied or remains pending without immediate relief. Similar mid-decade efforts in North Carolina and Missouri have faced legal scrutiny, though outcomes vary.

Critics argue the Texas redraw exploits the absence of federal preclearance requirements post-Shelby County v. Holder (2013), allowing partisan maneuvers without robust oversight. Voting-rights advocates say the map dilutes minority voting power in districts with significant Hispanic populations, particularly in South Texas.

The Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi has not intervened directly in the Texas litigation but has expanded election-monitoring efforts in Democratic-leaning states like California and New Jersey during off-year elections. Officials describe the deployments as routine compliance checks under federal voting-rights laws, but Democrats warn they normalize federal presence in ways that could intimidate voters or set precedents for 2026.

No evidence supports claims of a specific “SAFE Texas seat” suddenly turning into a “blue nightmare” due to court action. The Supreme Court’s stay preserves the GOP-favored lines, meaning most districts remain solidly Republican. Competitive seats in Texas — such as those in the Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs or Houston area — were already on watch lists before the redraw.

Political analysts say the mid-decade push reflects Mr. Trump’s strategy to maximize Republican advantages heading into midterms, where the president’s party historically loses ground. Democrats counter with their own map adjustments in blue states and court challenges in red ones, creating a patchwork of legal battles that could shape House control.

The Texas map remains subject to final Supreme Court review or lower-court proceedings on the merits. For now, Republicans hold the upper hand, but the fight underscores deepening partisan divisions over election rules and representation. The 2026 midterms will test whether these maneuvers deliver the intended gains — or backfire amid voter backlash and ongoing litigation.