In Texas, a federal judicial showdown is under way in El Paso over whether the state may use its newly passed congressional map—or whether it must instead revert to the 2021 boundaries—for the 2026 U.S. House elections. The stakes are unusually high because of the tight calendar: the candidate-filing deadline for the 2026 midterms is December 8. If the court allows the new map to stand, it will redefine the districts in which prospective congressional candidates must run; if not, candidates may need to file under the older, 2021 map.

The redrawn map was enacted during a politically charged special session of the Texas Legislature, following intense pressure from national Republicans — including former President Donald Trump — to shore up GOP control. The new lines, passed along largely partisan lines, are projected to give Republicans as many as five extra congressional seats, increasing their leverage in the U.S. House. Supporters of the redesign argue it is a straightforward partisan redistricting effort, justified by political realities and changing demographics.

However, a coalition of civil-rights organizations and minority voters vehemently opposes the new map. Groups including the NAACP, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the League of United Latin American Citizens have filed lawsuits alleging that the new lines dilute the voting power of Black and Hispanic Texans. They contend the map is a racial gerrymander, violating both the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, because it fractures minority communities and reduces their ability to elect their preferred candidates.

In a significant ruling, a three-judge panel in El Paso blocked the use of the 2025 map for now. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, who authored the decision, wrote that there is “substantial evidence” the map was drawn with race as a predominant factor—not just partisan advantage. The court ordered Texas to revert to the 2021 congressional districts for the upcoming election cycle, citing the risk that allowing the new map to stand would sort voters by race in a way that undermines their fundamental right to a free and fair election.

For its part, Texas Republicans defend the new map as a legally permissible redistricting aimed at maximizing political performance. They argue that while politics undeniably played a role, the redistricting was not motivated by race but by standard partisan objectives. They invoke the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that restricts federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymanders, maintaining that their focus was on gaining Republican seats—not targeting racial or ethnic groups.

The broader political context adds another layer of intensity. Earlier in the special session, more than 50 House Democrats fled the state to block the map vote, depriving Republicans of a quorum. In response, Republicans have pursued legal measures against those absent legislators, including efforts to remove them from office, framing their absence as an abandonment of duty. Combined, these battles reflect a full-court press by the GOP to reshape Texas’s congressional delegation ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Given the preliminary injunction and the court’s strong language, the case may now head to the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome could determine not only which map governs the 2026 election but also set important precedents about the boundaries of racial vs. partisan gerrymandering. With the December 8 filing deadline looming, both parties are closely watching to see if the injunction holds—or if Texas will get a rare, high-stakes ruling on redistricting just in time for the election.