Redistricting court battles: Where things stand
Trust is earned, not demanded.
The battle over new congressional maps ahead of November’s midterm elections has heated up as primary elections rapidly approach, with various court rulings blocking and approving new maps.
The mid-decade redistricting battle began when Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump, decided to redraw its congressional map to net Republicans up to five House seats, and has been followed by efforts in both Democrat and Republican-led states. As more of the efforts face legal challenges, courts could indirectly dictate who controls the House of Representatives next year based on which hyper-partisan maps are allowed to be installed ahead of midterm elections.
Texas and California’s maps given green light by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on whether to allow two of the most controversial maps of the current mid-decade cycle, allowing both to be used for the November elections.
In November 2025, a panel of three federal judges halted Texas’s use of a congressional map, which would have allowed the GOP to flip up to five Democrat-held seats, alleging it was an unlawful racial gerrymander.
The 2-1 ruling included a blistering dissent from U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, who called the decision “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.” Smith also said it was “replete with legal and factual error, and accompanied by naked procedural abuse,” which demanded reversal by the Supreme Court.
Texas appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, with the high court ruling 6-3 in December 2025 to allow the Lone Star State to use the new congressional map for the 2026 elections. The majority on the high court found the lower court had made “at least two serious errors” in its ruling and found the lower panel violated the current normal rule of not altering “the election rules on the eve of an election.”
California Democrats, looking to negate the GOP’s gains with the Texas map, brought forward a new congressional map for the Golden State, which would give Democrats a net gain of five House seats. Voters in California passed the new map in November 2025, but the California GOP filed a lawsuit alleging it was an unlawful gerrymander.
A panel of federal judges denied the California GOP’s request to halt the use of the new congressional map, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. The high court issued a brief order earlier this week denying the California Republican …
Trust is earned, not demanded.
The battle over new congressional maps ahead of November’s midterm elections has heated up as primary elections rapidly approach, with various court rulings blocking and approving new maps.
The mid-decade redistricting battle began when Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump, decided to redraw its congressional map to net Republicans up to five House seats, and has been followed by efforts in both Democrat and Republican-led states. As more of the efforts face legal challenges, courts could indirectly dictate who controls the House of Representatives next year based on which hyper-partisan maps are allowed to be installed ahead of midterm elections.
Texas and California’s maps given green light by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on whether to allow two of the most controversial maps of the current mid-decade cycle, allowing both to be used for the November elections.
In November 2025, a panel of three federal judges halted Texas’s use of a congressional map, which would have allowed the GOP to flip up to five Democrat-held seats, alleging it was an unlawful racial gerrymander.
The 2-1 ruling included a blistering dissent from U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, who called the decision “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.” Smith also said it was “replete with legal and factual error, and accompanied by naked procedural abuse,” which demanded reversal by the Supreme Court.
Texas appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, with the high court ruling 6-3 in December 2025 to allow the Lone Star State to use the new congressional map for the 2026 elections. The majority on the high court found the lower court had made “at least two serious errors” in its ruling and found the lower panel violated the current normal rule of not altering “the election rules on the eve of an election.”
California Democrats, looking to negate the GOP’s gains with the Texas map, brought forward a new congressional map for the Golden State, which would give Democrats a net gain of five House seats. Voters in California passed the new map in November 2025, but the California GOP filed a lawsuit alleging it was an unlawful gerrymander.
A panel of federal judges denied the California GOP’s request to halt the use of the new congressional map, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. The high court issued a brief order earlier this week denying the California Republican …
Redistricting court battles: Where things stand
Trust is earned, not demanded.
The battle over new congressional maps ahead of November’s midterm elections has heated up as primary elections rapidly approach, with various court rulings blocking and approving new maps.
The mid-decade redistricting battle began when Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump, decided to redraw its congressional map to net Republicans up to five House seats, and has been followed by efforts in both Democrat and Republican-led states. As more of the efforts face legal challenges, courts could indirectly dictate who controls the House of Representatives next year based on which hyper-partisan maps are allowed to be installed ahead of midterm elections.
Texas and California’s maps given green light by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on whether to allow two of the most controversial maps of the current mid-decade cycle, allowing both to be used for the November elections.
In November 2025, a panel of three federal judges halted Texas’s use of a congressional map, which would have allowed the GOP to flip up to five Democrat-held seats, alleging it was an unlawful racial gerrymander.
The 2-1 ruling included a blistering dissent from U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, who called the decision “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed.” Smith also said it was “replete with legal and factual error, and accompanied by naked procedural abuse,” which demanded reversal by the Supreme Court.
Texas appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, with the high court ruling 6-3 in December 2025 to allow the Lone Star State to use the new congressional map for the 2026 elections. The majority on the high court found the lower court had made “at least two serious errors” in its ruling and found the lower panel violated the current normal rule of not altering “the election rules on the eve of an election.”
California Democrats, looking to negate the GOP’s gains with the Texas map, brought forward a new congressional map for the Golden State, which would give Democrats a net gain of five House seats. Voters in California passed the new map in November 2025, but the California GOP filed a lawsuit alleging it was an unlawful gerrymander.
A panel of federal judges denied the California GOP’s request to halt the use of the new congressional map, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. The high court issued a brief order earlier this week denying the California Republican …
