The Supreme Court has reinstated Texas’s congressional map, which has been at the center of a redistricting conflict mid-decade, creating up to five potential Republican gains. This decision clears the way for the map’s use in the upcoming midterm elections while legal battles continue.

In a split decision, the court’s majority, opposed by its three liberal justices, suggested that a lower court likely erred in dismissing the map as a probable racial gerrymander.

“The District Court overstepped its bounds during an active primary season, creating unnecessary confusion and disrupting the sensitive balance between federal and state election responsibilities,” the unsigned ruling stated.

While this is not the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling, it allows Texas to proceed with its March primaries using the new map as the appeals process unfolds.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, criticized her peers for their intervention, highlighting that their decision was “based on a brief examination of a paper record over a holiday weekend.”

“Today’s order disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge—that put aside every consideration except getting the issue before it right,” Kagan wrote, joined by fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“And today’s order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race,” the dissent continued.

It sparked a brief response from three of the court’s conservatives — Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — who sided with Texas and rejected the notion that state Republicans redrew the map based on race.

“First, the dissent does not dispute—because it is indisputable—that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Alito wrote.

The war over Texas’s map started earlier this year when the White House and national Republicans pressed the Lone Star State to do mid-decade redistricting in an effort to net additional House seats as the GOP braces for a challenging midterm environment next year.  

Texas Republicans passed their new House map over the summer, which gives them a handful of potential new pickup opportunities. The redistricting push in Texas immediately set off a national arms race as blue and red states alike began reconsidering new House maps in their own states.  

Republicans on paper are expected to win up to nine seats in the House: five in Texas, two in Ohio, one in North Carolina and another in Missouri. Florida lawmakers are convening to consider redistricting in early December, and Indiana Republicans are reconvening this month to also consider the issue following much pressure from President Trump and his allies.  

Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to gain six seats on paper: five seats from a new House map that California voters approved in November and one seat in Utah. Virginia Democrats are looking to pass a new map ahead of 2026, and Maryland could also move forward with a new map. 

Democrats may be in for a better-than-anticipated midterm environment after their party saw resounding victories in races in states like New Jersey, Virginia, California and Georgia.  

Both parties have sued each others’ maps, including in Texas, creating a volatile environment for candidates and lawmakers alike as candidate filing deadlines are rapidly approaching and as political hopefuls brace to reintroduce themselves in new areas. 

In Texas, six groups of plaintiffs are challenging the map, including the Texas NAACP, the League of United Latin American Citizens and individual Black and Latino Texas voters.  

After the plaintiffs sued in Texas, a panel of federal judges held a nine-day hearing before ruling the design likely amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The 2-1 majority found the state redrew certain districts not for partisan motives, but because the Justice Department had raised concerns about its multiracial-majority status. 

The ruling would’ve required Texas to use its old map for the midterms. 

In a remarkably searing dissent, one judge excoriated the decision and accused his colleagues of misconduct. 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to immediately restore the state’s new GOP-friendly map. Abbott defended the design’s legality, but in asking for emergency relief, he argued the lower court stepped in too close to the primary. 

The candidate filing period closes next week, and other deadlines are approaching for the March 3 contest to stay on track. 

“Plaintiffs attempt to dismiss the difficulties in running an election, but elections in Texas are unusually large and complex,” Texas wrote in court filings. 

The Trump administration supported the emergency appeal, rejecting the notion that Texas’s map is racially impermissible. 

“This is not a close case,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the high court. 

But the plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court not to intervene, insisting no election deadlines need to change and that the lower court ruled correctly. 

“They enacted a map that redrew the same specific districts DOJ had targeted,” the Texas NAACP wrote in court filings. “In doing so, they took a sledgehammer to the voting power of Black and Latino citizens in those districts.” 

Alito had briefly restored the map as the high court considered the emergency appeal. 

Updated at 6:42 p.m. EST