It’s emblematic of the Supreme Court’s increasingly tenuous legitimacy and image of rank partisanship that no one was surprised last week when it blocked a district court order overturning Texas’ recently redrawn congressional maps.
The new maps were intended to benefit Republicans and potentially flip five House seats from Democratic to Republicans, so, of course, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ruled in their favor. That the court’s conservative justices simply ignore the law and lower-court decisions when they hurt Republicans — and create new legal doctrines when it benefits the GOP — is no longer news.
In a clinical 16-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan laid out in withering detail how her fellow justices ignored the law, past precedent and common sense.
Indeed, in a clinical 16-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan laid out in withering detail how her fellow justices ignored the law, past precedent and common sense in giving Texas Republicans a political boost. The conservative majority isn’t even pretending it’s not putting its finger on the scale to help the GOP.
Texas Republicans redrew the state’s congressional maps this year in a brazen and cynical effort to flip five House seats to the GOP next year. A host of progressive groups quickly sued, claiming Texas had violated the 14th and 15th amendments in using used racial data in its gerrymandering process. A U.S. district judge appointed by President Donald Trump conducted an exhaustive nine-day hearing, heard testimony from 23 witnesses and pored over more than 3,000 pages of evidence. Then, he issued a 160-page decision that found overwhelming evidence that Texas had, indeed, created a racial gerrymander — and he blocked the maps.
Yet, Kagan wrote,“this Court reverses that judgment based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.”
Considering how breezily they dismissed the district court judge’s ruling, it’s hard to imagine the conservative majority even bothered to read the opinion. If they did glance at it, they did so with minds already made up.
To step back a moment, in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that while distasteful, unjust and “incompatible with democratic principles,” excessive partisan gerrymandering was “beyond the reach of the federal courts” and thus legal. And in a concurring opinion in the Texas case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that state Republicans were motivated by “partisan advantage pure and simple.”
But the evidence uncovered by the district court suggests this simply isn’t true.
The district court found repeated instances of Texas legislators admitting the new districts were drawn along racial lines.
The evidence that emerged in trial of the GOP’s racial intent was overwhelming. For example, in direct testimony, Texas’ mapmaker argued that he was motivated by the goal of delivering Texas Republicans more House seats but then acknowledged that he had racial “data available at the press of a key on his redistricting software.”
The new maps constructed three majority Black or majority-Hispanic districts, “by the smallest amount possible” in some cases, less than half a percentage point. Kagan’s dissent notes that an expert witness testified “she had generated tens of thousands of congressional maps” that benefit Republicans and don’t use racial data and “not one of them had racial demographics that looked anything like those in the 2025 Map.”
Moreover, the district court found repeated instances of Texas legislators admitting the new districts were drawn along racial lines. For example, the Republican who introduced the bill redrawing the maps said, “[W]e created four out of five new seats” to have a ‘Hispanic majority. I would say that’s great.’”
This wasn’t even a close call, and yet, in a few paragraphs, the Supreme Court breezily dismissed the district court’s findings of fact.
Amazingly, Alito went a step further and attacked the plaintiffs for using false “claims of racial gerrymandering for partisan ends.” By this logic, the blatant partisans are not the Texas Republicans who redrew the state’s maps to give themselves a clear political advantage, but rather those who argued, correctly according to the district court, that Texas’ maps were motivated by racial intent.
What is particularly galling about the decision, as Kagan notes, is that under the court’s precedents, it is required to give “significant deference” to a lower court’s findings of fact regarding a racial gerrymander. The 6-3 conservative majority simply ignored that standard.
Kagan chastises her colleagues for acting like “we know better” than the court that actually listened to the evidence. Compounding the court’s terrible decision is the main rationale used by the majority. “The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the Supreme Court’s majority wrote. Here the court is obliquely referring to the Purcell principle, which establishes that courts should avoid making decisions too close to an election as it might cause “voter confusion.” Those of you reading that last paragraph might be confused. It’s December 2025. As Kagan dryly notes, “Texas is not on ‘the eve of an election.’” If SCOTUS had upheld the district court’s decision, then Texas would use the same House maps from 2022 and 2024. One might even argue that alllowing Republicans to change that map creates far greater “voter confusion.” The Supreme Court’s reasoning is ludicrous — and also incredibly dangerous. “If Purcell prevents” changing electoral law nearly a year before the election, said Kagan, then “it gives every State the opportunity to hold an unlawful election.” That means that Indiana and Florida, two Republican-run states that are currently considering redrawing their House maps, could create racial gerrymanders and, according to the Supreme Court, there is no legal discourse to stop them. What’s to prevent Florida from utilizing Jim Crow tactics, such as demanding voters pass a literacy test or adopting poll taxes? The court has, in effect, given Republican states carte blanche to disenfranchise minority voters and ignore the Voting Rights Act. At the end of her dissent, Kagan chastises her colleagues for acting like “we know better” than the court that actually listened to the evidence and issued a decision. ”I cannot think of a reason why,” she said. But Kagan is being far too kind. She knows exactly why — as do the rest of us. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court is, in effect, an arm of the Republican Party, intent on helping the GOP, the law be damned. The law is no longer the law. The law is whatever is good for Republicans.
Michael A. Cohen is a political writer and a fellow with the Eurasia Group Foundation. 
