Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has temporarily halted a lower court ruling that would have prevented Texas from implementing its new congressional map. Alito's decision, issued on Friday evening, does not provide an explanation for the administrative stay. This type of stay is intended to maintain the current situation while the justices review the case, and it does not reflect any judgment on the merits of the dispute.

The order came shortly after Texas Governor Greg Abbott and state attorneys filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court. They sought to uphold the state's contentious mid-decade redistricting plan, which aims to secure five additional Republican seats in the House of Representatives.

Earlier this week, a lower court ruled that there was "substantial evidence" indicating that Texas's new map constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. This ruling was based on a memo from the Department of Justice that highlighted racial considerations in the map's design. In response, Texas criticized the majority opinion, authored by District Court Judge Jeffrey Brown, claiming it failed to recognize the legislature's good faith and did not adequately separate race from political motivations in the map's creation.

Texas argued that Judge Brown should not have issued a ruling so close to the 2026 election, particularly just weeks before the candidate filing deadline on December 8. The state emphasized the potential chaos caused by the injunction, noting that campaigning had already begun, candidates had gathered signatures, and applications to appear on the ballot had been filed under the 2025 map. They pointed out that early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away.

The state is requesting that the justices issue a stay by December 1, which would allow the mid-decade 2025 map to be used in the upcoming midterm elections. The Supreme Court has asked for a response from the plaintiffs involved in the case by Monday at 5 p.m.

This emergency application follows a significant 160-page decision from the lower court that invalidated Texas Republicans' mid-decade redistricting efforts, labeling them as blatant racial gerrymandering. Judge Brown's opinion, released on Tuesday, concluded that there was substantial evidence showing that Texas had racially gerrymandered the map. This decision has intensified a nationwide redistricting competition that began under President Donald Trump, who aimed to maintain Republican control of the closely divided House of Representatives.

Brown's ruling stated that the entire redistricting effort was primarily motivated by a request from the Trump Justice Department, which was based on the racial demographics of four Democrat-held districts. Federal law and Supreme Court precedents prohibit the use of race as a predominant factor in drawing electoral maps, especially if it intentionally disenfranchises minority voters or dilutes their influence.

In a dissenting opinion released the following day, Judge Jerry E. Smith accused Judge Brown of aligning with liberal interests, specifically mentioning activist George Soros and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Smith defended Texas's mid-decade redistricting as a legal and partisan strategy, stating, "The most obvious reason for mid-cycle redistricting, of course, is partisan gain," rather than any intent of racial discrimination. He also noted that the Supreme Court has indicated that courts should refrain from interfering in the political process of map-drawing.