DOJ backs Texas in Supreme Court fight over Republican-drawn map
In a significant legal battle over redistricting, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has sided with Texas, asserting that the state’s newly approved congressional map does not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This support comes after a lower court blocked the map, ruling it violated federal voting laws by excessively considering race in its design. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse this decision, arguing that the Texas legislature’s adjustments to five districts were driven by partisan motives rather than racial considerations. Sauer emphasized that the evidence overwhelmingly points to political objectives, asserting, “This is not a close case.”
The controversy stems from a letter issued by Harmeet Dhillon, head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which criticized Texas for not adequately addressing “coalition districts” that favor Democrats. This letter has been cited by opponents of the new map as evidence of race-based motives behind the redistricting. However, Texas officials, including Governor Greg Abbott, have countered that the legislature’s actions were purely political, with no intent to manipulate racial demographics. The plaintiffs in the case, which include various voting and immigrant rights groups, argue that the DOJ’s stance misinterprets the implications of Dhillon’s letter, claiming it incorrectly labeled certain districts as unconstitutional and mandated changes that would dilute the representation of Black and Latino voters.
This redistricting dispute is part of a broader national trend, as states across the country grapple with the implications of political power shifts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Texas’ request to the Supreme Court seeks to pause the lower court’s ruling, which has already created uncertainty for candidates preparing to run under the new map. With Justice Samuel Alito temporarily halting the panel’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision could have profound implications not only for Texas but also for redistricting processes nationwide, as states like California and Virginia navigate their own electoral maps amidst similar controversies. The outcome of this case will not only shape Texas’ political landscape but could also set a precedent for how race and partisanship are evaluated in future redistricting efforts across the United States.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vCvCrCoZVA
The
Department of Justice
threw its support behind Texas on Monday, arguing the new map the state’s Republican-led legislature approved was not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the Trump administration, wrote in an amicus brief that a lower court’s decision to block the map through the 2026 midterms was wrong and that the Supreme Court should intervene and reverse the decision.
“This is not a close case,” Sauer wrote.
TEXAS FILES EMERGENCY SUPREME COURT PETITION AFTER TRUMP-BACKED CONGRESSIONAL MAP BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES
Sauer said the lower court misunderstood what drove the Texas legislature to shift five districts in favor of Republicans. He said the move was not based on race, which could violate federal voting laws and the Constitution.
“There is overwhelming evidence — both direct and circumstantial — of partisan objectives, and any inference that the State inexplicably chose to use racial means is implausible,” Sauer wrote.
Sauer also defended a letter Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon wrote to Texas this year demanding that it address “coalition districts” that favor Democrats, which the challengers to the map have seized on as evidence of race-based motives. Days after the letter, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, added redistricting to the legislature’s agenda, leading to a stunning boycott in which state Democrats temporarily fled the state.
The lower court “misinterpreted the letter’s meaning; and more importantly, the court misunderstood the letter’s significance to the legislature’s adoption of the 2025 map,” Sauer said.
The plaintiffs in the case, who include numerous voting and immigrant rights groups, argued that Dhillon’s letter demanded dismantling the coalition districts and packing Black and Latino voters into other districts.
“The DOJ letter, riddled with legal and factual errors, incorrectly asserted that these districts were ‘unconstitutional coalition districts’ that Texas was required to ‘rectify’ by changing their racial makeup,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote.
REAGAN-APPOINTED JUDGE TORCHES COLLEAGUES IN TEXAS MAP FIGHT
Texas’ mid-cycle redistricting dispute is one of several that have cropped up across the country as President
Donald Trump
stares down the possibility of losing an acquiescent Republican-led House in 2026. California voted in favor of an eleventh-hour ballot measure that would cancel out the five Republican gains in Texas. Utah’s map has changed in favor of Democrats, Virginia has taken steps to redraw its map and Louisiana’s is pending before the Supreme Court.
The DOJ recently sued
Gov. Gavin Newsom
, a Democrat, over California’s redistricting efforts, arguing that unlike in Texas, those were unconstitutionally race-based.
Texas has asked the Supreme Court to pause the three-judge panel’s ruling in the Western District of Texas that found 2-1 last week that race was too much of a factor in its redraw.Â
“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” Texas’ attorneys argued in their request, disputing all notions that the redistricting process used race as a factor.
In a lengthy and wild tirade, Judge
Jerry Brown
, a Reagan appointee and the lone dissenter, called the three-judge panel’s decision the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he had ever seen and a work of “fiction.”
Justice Samuel Alito has administratively paused the panel’s ruling, but the Supreme Court could now make a more lasting decision on the map at any time. Texas lawyers have also argued the high court should block the panel’s decision because it interfered with the 2026 midterms, for which candidates were already filing to run based on the new map.
