the Supreme Court of the United States issued a Ruling in favor of Donald TrumpFacing the legislative elections in 2026. agreed to New electoral map of Texas Promoted by the Republican President and Governor Greg Abbottafter the siege imposed due to alleged racial manipulation.
As detailed Courthouse Newsthe highest court US Support Trump’s strategy to secure advantages in the House of Representatives And it is allowed The legislative map approved by Texas will be preserved. The order was issued without a signature, and he reprimanded the court of first instance for that He abolished the state design At a time considered very close to the election cycle.
The ruling ruled so Local judges ‘interfered in active election campaign’This changed what the conservative majority described as “the fragile balance between the federal state” with regard to elections.
In the opposing voices, Justice Elena Kagan harshly questioned her colleagues To invalidate the trial court’s full review. The judge criticized that the Supreme Court was relying solely on a “cold file that was read over the weekend,” saying that meant disdain for the meticulous work done by federal judges.
He added: “Today, this order diminishes the work of the court, which did everything that could be asked of it to resolve the matter properly.”Kagan stated in the dissenting text he joined Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. He also warned that the result It will affect “millions of Texans.” New areas were allocated “on the basis of race.”
For her part, Greg Abbott celebrated In your X account court ruling: “Texas is officially and legally most republican.”. He continued in the same vein: “The new maps better align our representation in Washington, D.C., with Texas values.”
Conflict over the territories escalated rapidly. plate of Federal judges The 2025 maps were revoked in November After considering that the Department of Justice’s warning had led to Distinctive redesign. Texas immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, accusing the plaintiffs of turning the judicial process into a “weapon of political warfare.”
judge Samuel Alito granted an administrative suspension that temporarily restored the Republican map, While the court analyzed whether it should be applied in the 2026 elections.
This decision This was key, because Texas was already approaching a deadline: the deadline for submitting nominations ends in December 8Which did not leave much room to re-adopt the 2021 map, as 37 out of 38 regions differed from the plan approved in 2025.
The Lone Star State argued so Resuming the process under the old territorial boundaries was practically “impossible”. Given the size of the district, the number of counties affected, and the complex network of participating voters.
the Civil rights organizations pushed in the opposite directionAs he explained Courthouse News. In this sense, they warned against it Texas could not hide behind logistical difficulties To justify mapping, which they claimed violated the Constitution.
They noted that “returning to the status quo does not represent a significant burden when the rights of voters vulnerable to racial gerrymandering are at stake.”
They also highlighted this The Abbott administration could have avoided this conflict if it had followed the law Instead of adopting federal guidelines that they believe harm non-white communities.
Kagan stressed this The court of first instance ‘proceeded methodically’ In the entire file, When evaluating testimonies, evidence and statementswhile The Supreme Court did not provide reasons To impose their vision of the issue.
The judge mentioned that The decision opened the door for any country to impose illegal maps By approving it only a year before the elections. “This cannot be the law, yet it exists today,” he wrote.
AlitoIn a concurring opinion joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, He stated that the motivation behind the map was “partisan advantage pure and simple.”. He also confirmed that The trial court applied the wrong standard By not requiring plaintiffs to provide a workable alternative that demonstrates the possibility of achieving political goals without resorting to racist norms.
“Although plaintiffs’ experts could have easily produced such a map, they did not,” he said.