What Comes Next for Texas’ Blocked GOP Gerrymander

After a federal court delivered a stinging rebuke of Texas Republicans’ mid-decade redistricting scheme — ruling it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — GOP leaders wasted no time appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The stakes are still enormous. At issue is whether Texas can use a map that dismantled minority, Democratic-leaning districts in an effort to cement Republican dominance ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

If the high court intervenes or delays, the gerrymandered map could go back into effect — tipping the U.S. House toward the GOP and depriving millions of voters of fair representation.

While the Supreme Court has not yet said whether it will take up the case or allow the lower court’s injunction to stand, what happens next — in the coming days and weeks — will help determine the fate of democracy in Texas and nationwide. 

Here’s what to watch for.

SCOTUS Grants an Emergency Stay Application 

Texas is very likely to ask the Supreme Court for what’s known as an emergency stay  — a fast-track order that would pause the lower court’s ruling and allow the challenged congressional map to take effect while the case plays out.

If the court grants it, the racially gerrymandered map could be used in the 2026 elections — despite a federal court’s finding that it was drawn to dismantle minority and Democratic-leaning districts in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

The request goes first to Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees emergency appeals from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He can issue a stay on his own or refer the decision to the full court.

Alito has previously sided with Republican officials in redistricting and voting rights disputes, and a stay could come quickly — potentially before candidate filing deadlines close on December 8. 

Although a stay is not a final ruling, it would suspend the district court’s injunction and immediately clear the way for the GOP’s map to be used. Because candidate filing deadlines are imminent, an emergency stay — even if temporary — would effectively decide the issue for the 2026 election cycle.

Even if the court later rules against Texas, it might be too late to reverse the damage.

In recent years, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has increasingly relied on the so-called “Purcell principle” — a doctrine that discourages changes to election rules too close to an election — even when those rules are discriminatory. A stay now could lock the map in place for 2026, with lasting consequences for Texas voters and national representation.

SCOTUS Denies the Stay, Upholds the Lower Court’s Block 

If the Supreme Court denies Texas’ request for an emergency stay, the lower court’s ruling will remain in force, blocking the gerrymandered map from being used in the 2026 elections.

This would be a historic victory for fair representation and a clear signal that the justices are not willing to intervene, at least for now. It would mean the court is allowing the three-judge panel’s findings — that Texas’ map intentionally dismantled districts where minority voters could elect their preferred candidates, in violation of the VRA and the U.S. Constitution — to stand. 

Without a stay, Texas would revert to using the previous congressional map drawn after the 2020 census — the same one used in the 2022 midterms. That map preserved several competitive or Democratic-leaning districts that the GOP had targeted in its mid-decade redraw.

Texas could still ask the court to take up the case in full and issue a final ruling before November 2026. But without a stay, the path to using the gerrymandered map this cycle effectively closes — and the burden shifts to the state to argue why the ruling should be reversed.

A denial would certainly be rare from the conservative court — but not impossible. In similar recent cases, including one out of Alabama, the court allowed remedial maps to proceed after lower courts found violations of minority voting rights. A similar move here would protect Texas voters — and deal a major blow to Trump’s broader gerrymandering strategy.

SCOTUS Grants Full Certiorari with Expedited Briefing 

The court could go beyond a stay and agree to take up the case in full — granting what’s known as “certiorari,” putting it on a fast track for briefing and scheduling oral arguments as early as January 2026.

That would signal the justices see the case as nationally important, with implications for how race, partisanship and coalitions are treated in redistricting. It would also raise the stakes as a full hearing opens the door for the court’s conservative majority to rewrite major parts of voting rights doctrine.

If the court expedites the case, a final ruling could come by summer 2026 — just months before voters head to the polls. Even with the gerrymandered map blocked for now, a late ruling could affect redistricting battles across the country significantly.

Release of Dissenting Opinion Influences Shadow Docket

Judge Jerry E. Smith’s unreleased dissent — likely questioning the majority’s findings on racial intent — could be filed in the coming days and may quickly become a rallying point for conservative legal activists.

Although dissents have no legal force, if Smith’s dissent is sharp and forceful enough, it could be cited in Texas’ appeal and amplified by GOP-aligned, anti-voting groups or Republican attorneys general in amicus briefs. 

That could help sway the conservative court toward granting a stay or full review, tipping the odds toward reinstating the gerrymandered map — even if only temporarily.

But if the dissent lands weakly or fails to rebut the majority’s detailed evidence, it could have the opposite effect. A lackluster response might underscore the strength of the lower court’s ruling and make it harder for the justices to justify intervention, especially under the emergency procedures of the shadow docket.

The “shadow docket” refers to the Supreme Court’s handling of cases outside its normal, fully briefed and argued process — often through emergency orders issued without explanation, oral argument or written opinions. These rulings, including stays and injunctions, can have sweeping effects despite happening with little transparency.

Texas Calls Special Legislative Session for Remedial Map 

As perhaps a last resort, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) could call another special legislative session as early as mid-December to rush through a new congressional map — one crafted to appear “race-neutral” in response to the court’s ruling.

This move would be aimed at sidestepping legal uncertainty by withdrawing the challenged map and mooting the appeal. A revised version that avoids explicitly dismantling coalition districts — while still tilting toward GOP interests — might be pitched as a compromise, even if it remains a racial gerrymander in effect.

But this path carries significant risks.

Another special session could reignite Democratic resistance — stalling proceedings and fueling public backlash. A rushed process with a new map seen as a superficial fix would guarantee immediate legal challenges and be blocked again — prolonging the fight and locking in the 2021 map for another cycle. 

On the other hand, a court-certified “compliant” map could salvage at least some GOP gains without inviting another full-blown showdown.

Whether Abbott pursues this route may depend on signals from the court — and how much leverage GOP leaders in Texas believe they still have left.

California’s Map is Not Affected by Any Texas Outcome 

Some observers may wonder whether the fallout from Texas’ blocked gerrymander could disrupt California’s voter-approved redistricting plan under Proposition 50. 

It will not.

Although early drafts of Prop 50 included a “trigger” provision tying its implementation to whether Texas moved forward with its mid-decade redraw, that language was removed long before the amendment reached voters.

As enacted, Prop 50 stands on its own. Its authority for a legislatively drawn congressional map in California does not depend on any action in Texas, any national redistricting trend or any reciprocal state-level change elsewhere. 

Regardless of how the Supreme Court handles the Texas appeal — whether the gerrymandered map is revived, blocked or litigated into next summer — California’s Prop 50 map will proceed on the timeline set by state law and the state constitution.

California is facing its own legal challenge, but that fight is specific to the Golden State, not related to anything unfolding in Texas.