In a blockbuster decision on Tuesday, a three-judge federal court in Texas struck down that state’s new redistricting map, which was deliberately drawn to give Republicans five new seats in Congress.
The court deemed the map unconstitutional, but not because it was a partisan gerrymander. Under a 2019 Supreme Court case, partisan gerrymanders are not unconstitutional. Instead, the court ruled that Texas’s new map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” announced the 2–1 majority in LULAC v. Abbott, but “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.” If the majority opinion stands, Texas’s 2021 map will be used instead for the 2026 midterms, and the loss of the 2025 map’s five additional Republican seats could conceivably determine which party wins the House.
You can’t fault the two-judge opinion for a lack of thoroughness. It’s 160 pages long, with 628 footnotes. But as a legal matter, the entire ruling rests on a highly debatable premise. The dissenting judge—the fiery Reagan appointee Jerry Smith—has not yet filed his opinion, but it’s likely to be a doozy.
Here’s the issue that’s going to be contested. It’s complicated, so bear with me.
