DOJ Backs Texas in Supreme Court Fight Over Republican-Drawn Map
The Department of Justice delivered a significant boost to Texas on Monday, siding with the Republican-led Legislature and rejecting claims that the state’s newly approved congressional map amounts to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The move clears a major hurdle for Texas as it seeks to implement its updated districts ahead of the pivotal 2026 midterm elections.
In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer—arguing on behalf of President Donald J. Trump’s administration—asserted that a lower court had wrongly blocked the state’s map. Sauer urged the justices to intervene and restore the Legislature’s authority, writing succinctly in his brief: “This is not a close case.”
Sauer maintained that the Legislature’s decision to revise five congressional districts was driven by lawful political considerations, not race, and that the court’s ruling misread the intent behind the changes. According to the Trump administration, partisan mapmaking is not only permissible but expected in the democratic process.
“There is overwhelming evidence — both direct and circumstantial — of partisan objectives, and any inference that the State inexplicably chose to use racial means is implausible,” Sauer wrote.
He also defended a prior letter from Civil Rights Division chief Harmeet Dhillon, which had urged Texas to address “coalition districts” that traditionally give Democrats an electoral edge. Democrats and left-leaning advocacy groups have pointed to the letter as proof of racial motivations, but Sauer pushed back, saying the lower court “misinterpreted the letter’s meaning; and more importantly, the court misunderstood the letter’s significance to the legislature’s adoption of the 2025 map.”
The dispute over the letter triggered a dramatic episode earlier this year, when Gov. Greg Abbott expanded the Legislature’s agenda to include redistricting—prompting state Democrats to stage a high-profile walkout and temporarily flee Texas in protest.
Plaintiffs in the ongoing case, composed of voting and immigrant rights groups, insisted in court filings that the Dhillon letter effectively demanded the dismantling of coalition districts and the relocation of Black and Latino voters into newly drawn boundaries. As they argued, “The DOJ letter, riddled with legal and factual errors, incorrectly asserted that these districts were ‘unconstitutional coalition districts’ that Texas was required to ‘rectify’ by changing their racial makeup.”
Texas’ mid-cycle redistricting battle is unfolding as President Donald Trump confronts a shifting national map—one where Democrats are aggressively maneuvering to counter Republican gains. In California, voters passed a late-breaking ballot measure designed to reverse five GOP pickups secured by Texas, while Utah and Virginia adopted changes that advantage Democrats. Meanwhile, GOP-favored maps in Louisiana, Missouri, and potentially Indiana remain in play, with some awaiting Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department is also simultaneously suing California Gov. Gavin Newsom, claiming that his state’s new map is unconstitutionally race-driven—a stance that stands in sharp contrast to DOJ’s support for Texas, as noted by Fox News.
Texas has appealed the recent 2–1 ruling from a Western District of Texas panel that held race played an impermissible role in the Legislature’s mid-cycle map adjustments. State attorneys defended the Legislature’s actions, reminding the Court that redistricting inherently involves political decision-making, arguing: “This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics.”
In a blistering dissent, U.S. District Judge Jerry Brown—a Reagan appointee—condemned the panel majority’s ruling as the “most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he had ever seen. He labeled their decision a judicial “work of fiction.”
Justice Samuel Alito has already issued a temporary administrative stay, and the full Supreme Court is expected to weigh in soon—potentially reshaping the 2026 electoral landscape in one of the nation’s most politically consequential states.
Texas attorneys have also emphasized the urgency of Supreme Court intervention, noting that candidates have begun filing for office under the disputed map. Delaying or blocking the map now, they argue, would throw an already tense election cycle into chaos.