Texas asks the Supreme Court to review a ruling that found the state's new congressional map is likely an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Good question. Here’s a breakdown of what’s going on — and what Texas is asking the Supreme Court to do:

---

What Happened

1. Lower Court Ruling

A federal three-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, blocked Texas from using its new 2025 congressional map for the 2026 elections. 

Judge Jeffrey Brown (Trump appointee) wrote a 160-page opinion finding “substantial evidence” that the map was racially motivated, not just politically: race predominated over partisanship. 

He pointed to a July letter from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (led by Harmeet Dhillon) that urged Texas to redraw “coalition districts” — districts where no one racial group is a majority, but combined minorities are — which he said injected race into a supposedly race-neutral process. 

Brown also cited statements from Governor Greg Abbott and other lawmakers, concluding they “explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race.” 

The court said that without blocking the map, “voters will be forced to be represented … based on likely unconstitutional racial classifications for at least two years.” 

The remedy: return to the 2021 congressional map. 

One of the judges dissented sharply, accusing Brown of overreach. 

2. Texas Appeals to the Supreme Court

Texas has filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking to stay the lower court’s ruling — in other words, to let the 2025 map stay in effect while the legal fight continues. 

One of the key arguments Texas makes: the timing is very tight. The deadline for candidates to file is December 8, and the state says changing maps now would wreak havoc with the election process. 

In its filing, Texas argued that the lower court made “multiple legal errors” and that the injunction (blocking the map) was too disruptive. 

Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency matters for the 5th Circuit (which includes Texas), has paused the lower court’s order — at least temporarily — while the Supreme Court considers the state’s request. 

---

Why This Matters

Racial vs. Partisan Gerrymandering: Partisan gerrymandering (drawing lines to favor a political party) is very hard to challenge in federal court. But racial gerrymandering (drawing lines based on race) is unconstitutional under the 14th and 15th Amendments. 

Coalition Districts: The “coalition districts” (where no single race is a majority, but combined minority groups are) are a central point. The DOJ letter said these districts should be dismantled; the court viewed that as injecting race into the redistricting in an improper way. 

Election Timing: With the filing deadline looming, there's a big risk that reversing map lines now would cause significant electoral disruption. 

Precedent: How the Supreme Court rules could set a major precedent for redistricting fights in other states — especially those where race and party overlap in complex ways.

---

If you like, I can walk you through both sides’ strongest legal arguments, or explain what likely happens next. Do you want me to do that?