Supreme Court Issues Emergency Stay on Texas Map The divided Court issued a 2‑1 emergency stay on Thursday, preserving the GOP‑favored congressional map for the 2026 elections while the case proceeds [1][2][3]. The stay halts the lower‑court ruling that had blocked the map on racial‑gerrymandering grounds [1][3]. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, authored the majority order, invoking the Purcell principle and a presumption of legislative good faith [3]. Liberal Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the intervention would place voters in districts based on race, violating the Constitution [1][3].

Map Engineered to Add Five Republican Seats The redistricting plan, drawn in summer 2025 at former President Trump’s urging, reallocates districts to give Texas five additional Republican seats in the U.S. House [1][2][3]. Analysts note the design could flip five seats currently held by Democrats, potentially reshaping House control during the final two years of the Trump‑era presidency [3]. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Governor Greg Abbott hailed the decision as a protection of the state’s right to elect Republicans [1]. The map’s partisan intent was emphasized by the majority, which argued that partisan motives do not trigger federal jurisdiction [3].

Lower Courts Raised Voting‑Rights Concerns Federal judges Jeffrey V. Brown and David Guaderrama previously found the map likely dilutes Black and Latino voting strength, suggesting a possible violation of the Voting Rights Act [2]. The Supreme Court’s stay does not resolve these constitutional questions; the case will continue to be litigated [2][3]. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent highlighted the racial impact, contending that the Court should not intervene at this stage and that the map’s racial considerations are constitutionally suspect [1][3]. The stay therefore leaves the substantive voting‑rights issue open for future review [2].

Political Reactions Highlight Deep Partisan Divide Republican leaders praised the stay as a victory for Texas’s electoral autonomy, with Paxton and Abbott asserting the map reflects the state’s political climate [1]. Democratic officials, including Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu, and civil‑rights groups condemned the decision as a blow to minority voting power [3]. The ruling adds Texas to a growing list of states—Missouri, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, and California—engaged in contentious redistricting battles [1][2]. The ultimate legal fate of the map remains uncertain pending the Court’s final judgment [2][3].