DOJ Tries To Undo Damage of Its ‘Ham-Fisted’ Letter in Texas Gerrymander Case

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief Monday supporting Texas’ gerrymandered congressional map, boldly claiming that the much-maligned letter it sent urging state leaders to redistrict was not, in fact, the reason why Texas redrew its map immediately after receiving the letter. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering the Texas case*, after a panel of three federal judges last week blocked the state from using the map in 2026. 

The DOJ letter – which instructed Texas to redraw specific congressional districts because of their racial makeup, and threatened swift legal action if it did not comply – played a major role in the majority opinion. The judges concluded it was key evidence of racial gerrymandering. 

Now, in its new brief, the DOJ has attempted to argue the court misinterpreted the letter and claimed the state did not redistrict because of it.

Federal judges last week blasted the DOJ letter and concluded the Texas gerrymander would not hold up in court.

“It’s challenging to unpack the DOJ Letter because it contains so many factual, legal, and typographical errors,” the judges wrote. “Indeed, even attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General — who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration — describe the DOJ Letter as ‘legally unsound,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘ham-fisted,’ and ‘a mess.’”

The letter badly undermined the state’s argument that the gerrymander was motivated only by partisanship, they went on to say.

“Had the Trump Administration sent Texas a letter urging the State to redraw its congressional map to improve the performance of Republican candidates, the Plaintiff Groups would then face a much greater burden to show that race—rather than partisanship—was the driving force behind the 2025 Map,” the judges wrote. “But nothing in the DOJ Letter is couched in terms of partisan politics.”

The DOJ on Monday presented a different spin, trying to distance Texas lawmakers from the letter.

“The evidence clearly demonstrates that Texas was not doing DOJ’s supposed bidding—much less in a race-conscious way—but instead was engaged in a race-blind partisan gerrymander that happened to affect the districts DOJ identified,” the department claimed, adding, “[t]he record shows that Texas did not actually follow any purported DOJ directive to engage in racial gerrymandering.”

The DOJ’s new argument could come as a surprise to Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R), who explicitly said upon the map’s passage: “The Texas House today delivered legislation to redistrict certain congressional districts to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice.” 

The DOJ also doubled down on its legal analysis in the letter and argued that federal judges had “mischaracterized” it as “direct[ing] Texas to engage in racial gerrymandering.”

Rather, “the letter urged Texas to eliminate race from consideration when redrawing those four districts (and all other districts as well),” the brief stated.

The majority opinion blocking the map was written by Judge Jeffrey Brown, who was appointed by President Donald Trump. He was joined by Judge David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

In his opinion, Brown outlined inconsistencies in GOP witnesses’ testimony and concluded that mapmaker Adam Kincaid and state Sen. Phil King, who led the Senate’s redistricting committee, were not credible witnesses.

In Monday’s brief, the DOJ echoed a blistering dissent from Judge Jerry Smith, writing that Brown and Guaderrama had flouted the presumption that Texas lawmakers acted in good faith and, instead, had taken “an uncharitable view” of their testimony. 

In fact, the DOJ argued, the court must take King and others at their word that they “paid no heed to the DOJ letter.”

The DOJ also insisted the plaintiffs were required to present an alternative map “that would satisfy the State’s partisan goal of adding five Republican seats but that would not have the racial demographics challenged by respondents.” The department criticized the court for concluding an alternative map was unnecessary because the plaintiffs had direct evidence that race was the predominant factor driving the gerrymander. 

*Some plaintiffs are represented by the Elias Law Group (ELG). ELG firm chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.