Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has quickly appealed to the Supreme Court a ruling that the redistricting passed by lawmakers at the urging of President Trump was based on racial gerrymandering.
"Any claim that these maps are discriminatory is absurd and unsupported by the testimony offered during ten days of hearings," said Gov. Greg Abbott in a statement. "This ruling is clearly erroneous and undermines the authority the U.S. Constitution assigns to the Texas Legislature by imposing a different map by judicial edict."
A three-judge panel had earlier Tuesday placed temporary block on the map that Republican lawmakers passed this summer and ordered the state to use the district maps from the last two elections.
The map that was overruled was made to give Republicans an advantage in flipping as many as five seats held by Democrats.
"To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map," wrote the majority in a three-judge panel.
The panel heard a trial on the case in October.
The ruling is a blow to Trump and the Republicans in a nationwide redistricting race that began in Texas this summer.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also said he would appeal the ruling on the "Big Beautiful Map" which he called "entirely legal" in a statement.
Democrats praised the court ruling. "Race was always a driving factor and a driving factor to make it harder for minority Texans," said Texas Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher. "This map was drawn to make it harder for them to have an impact in elections."
The court's decision comes at a pivotal moment. Around the country, Trump is pressing state Republican lawmakers to reshape congressional election voting maps to hold the party's majority in the House in order to support his agenda.
Using their heavy Republican majority, Texas lawmakers passed a map in August that would have helped their party grow its ranks in the 2026 elections for the U.S. House.
The process gained national attention when Democrats in the legislature fled the state for over two weeks to delay a vote and Republican leaders threatened to arrest them. Democrats argued the new map weakened the voting power of Latino and Black communities.
The redistricting in Texas also prompted California Democrats to act. In November California voters passed an initiative allowing redistricting that could help Democrats win five seats in that state.
Opponents said the new map is racial gerrymandering
Republicans in the Texas Legislature passed the map saying it was designed to improve their party's chances of winning five congressional seats. They noted that, unlike in some states, the law in Texas does not prohibit redistricting for partisan advantage and that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts could not intervene when it's done.
But partisan gerrymandering can often overlap with racial gerrymandering, which is illegal. Opponents of the new map argued in court that it intentionally diminished the voting power of minority communities.
The 160-page opinion was written by District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president. His ruling drew upon statements and contradictions in what Republican lawmakers said as the maps were passed.
The judges noted that when Gov. Abbott originally called lawmakers into session to draw the map, he cited a letter from Justice Department officials in the Trump administration criticizing districts that had majority non-white voting populations as "racial gerrymanders." In other words, the letter implied the districts as they stood gave non-white voters an advantage.
That letter put lawmakers, who for years had denied their use of race when making maps, in "a difficult spot" according to UT-Austin political scientist Josh Blank, because they were "ultimately saying opposite things."
Eventually, Texas Republicans said the map was not intended to correct for a racial tilt but for partisan gain, not about race.
"This decision is a rebuke of Donald Trump and to some degree a rebuke of lawmakers in Texas," said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist with the University of Houston. "The juris were very clear. They think the process was flawed and the Department of Justice was not credible in their legal arguments."
Rep. Gene Wu, Democratic leader in the Texas House, said Tuesday's ruling shows the courts still hold true to American principles.
"The striking down of the maps is fundamentally a sign that the courts still believe in the core principles of this country: That one man one vote idea is something that is absolute and must be kept up," Wu said.
Around the country, Republicans have options for redistricting more seats their way than Democrats do, in part because the GOP controls more state legislatures. Usually, states redistrict at the start of the decade after the national census.
At the behest of Trump, lawmakers in Missouri and North Carolina passed new maps that could help the GOP win a seat in each state. Ohio drew a map that analysts say gives Republicans a slight advantage in a few seats.
A court-ordered redistricting in Utah could help Democrats win a seat there, and Virginia Democrats have started a process that could yield two seats in that state.
NPR's Larry Kaplow contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 KUT News