Justice Department Supports Texas in Redistricting Case
The Justice Department has sided with Texas, arguing that the latest congressional map approved by the Republican-led state Legislature should not be classified as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Attorney General John Sauer indicated in a court brief that the previous ruling, which blocked the maps from being used until the 2026 midterms, was flawed. He urged the Supreme Court to step in and overturn this decision.
“This isn’t a tense situation,” Sauer stated.
Texas Asks Supreme Court to Overturn Block on Congressional Map
Sauer claimed that the lower courts misinterpreted the reasons behind the changes made to five districts aimed at benefiting Republicans. He emphasized that the decision was not based on race, suggesting it could conflict with federal voting laws and constitutional standards.
“There’s overwhelming evidence of partisan motivations, both direct and circumstantial. It’s incorrect to assume the state used racial criteria arbitrarily,” Sauer argued.
He also defended a letter from Civil Rights Director Harmeet Dhillon to Texas, which raised concerns about the so-called “coalition constituencies” that favor Democrats. This was highlighted by those opposing the new map as proof of racial intent. Shortly after the letter, Republican Governor Greg Abbott included redistricting in the legislative agenda, which led to a dramatic boycott by Texas Democrats.
Sauer noted that the lower court misunderstood the implications of the letter and its importance for congressional adoption of the 2025 map.
Opponents of the map, including various voter and immigrant rights groups, asserted that Dhillon’s letter called for dismantling coalition districts, effectively concentrating Black and Latino voters into fewer districts.
“The DOJ’s letter contains numerous legal and factual inaccuracies, wrongly labeling these districts as ‘unconstitutional confederate districts’ that need remediation through changes in racial demographics,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote.
Judicial Support for Texas Redistricting Efforts
The ongoing debate about redistricting in Texas mirrors several similar discussions across the country, especially as President Donald Trump potentially faces losing control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming 2026 elections. California recently passed a voting bill that might negate five Republican gains in Texas, while Utah’s redistricting efforts leaned Democratic. Virginia is also gearing up to redraw its maps, and a case from Louisiana awaits Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department has recently taken action against California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom over redistricting, alleging that, in contrast to Texas, those efforts are unconstitutional.
Texas has appealed to the Supreme Court to halt the prior decision from a three-judge panel that concluded race was overly influential in the redistricting process.
According to Texas lawyers, “This summer, the Texas Legislature executed the political maneuvers that Congress is supposed to engage in,” seeking to counter any claims that race played a role in the redistricting efforts.
Judicial Activism Critiqued
In a passionate dissent, Judge Jerry Brown, appointed by President Reagan, criticized the three-judge panel’s ruling as “the most blatant example of judicial activism” he had ever encountered, deeming it a piece of “fiction.”
Justice Samuel Alito has temporarily suspended the panel’s ruling, but a more definitive decision from the Supreme Court could emerge at any moment. Texas lawyers added that blocking the ruling is crucial, as it would disrupt the upcoming 2026 midterms, where candidates have already begun to file based on the new maps.
