The Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken a strong stance in support of Texas, affirming that the state’s newly approved congressional map does not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In a recent legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court, DOJ Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the lower court’s decision to block the map was erroneous. Sauer contended that the Republican-led legislature’s decision to shift five districts in favor of the GOP was primarily driven by partisan goals rather than race, which could violate federal voting laws and the Constitution.
The case has generated significant legal and political debate, with the DOJ’s support raising concerns about the potential for partisan bias in redistricting. The plaintiffs, including numerous voting and immigrant rights groups, argued that the lower court’s ruling was based on a misinterpretation of the DOJ’s letter to Texas regarding ‘coalition districts’ that favor Democrats. They contended that the letter, written by the head of the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, incorrectly framed certain districts as ‘unconstitutional coalition districts’ that needed to be altered, which they believe was used to justify the map’s blocking.
Texas’ redistricting dispute is part of a broader national trend as the 2026 midterms draw closer. Other states, including California, Utah, Virginia, and Louisiana, have faced similar legal challenges over their proposed maps. The DOJ has also taken a stance against California’s redistricting efforts, arguing that those were unconstitutionally race-based. This case, however, has brought renewed scrutiny to the role of race in redistricting and the potential for the Supreme Court to intervene. With Justice Samuel Alito temporarily halting the lower court’s ruling, the Supreme Court now faces the challenge of determining whether the map’s approval was constitutionally sound or if it violates federal voting rights laws.