Voting rights organizations and civil rights groups have filed a legal challenge against a congressional map adopted by the Texas Legislature in August 2025, claiming it exemplifies racial gerrymandering. This challenge follows an emergency order from Justice Samuel Alito that temporarily reinstated the map favored by Republicans. The groups argue that the map dilutes the voting power of Black and Hispanic communities, a claim supported by a recent ruling from a federal panel indicating that the map was likely created with discriminatory intent.

The Mexican American Legislative Caucus has stated that the map was designed to meet a racial directive, thereby violating the Constitution's equal protection clause, which mandates fair application of laws without discrimination. The dispute began earlier in the year when former President Donald Trump urged Texas to redraw its congressional map to create five additional districts favoring Republicans. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Justice informed Texas that four of its congressional districts were unconstitutional coalition districts, lacking a single racial majority. In response, the state adopted a new map in September.

On November 18, a three-judge district court found substantial evidence that the new map constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, relying excessively on race in its design. Texas has since appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a stay of the lower court's ruling to allow the new map to be used in the upcoming elections. Texas Solicitor General William Peterson argued that the timing of the ruling was inappropriate under the Purcell doctrine, which generally discourages changes to election rules close to an election. He contended that the challengers should have proposed alternative maps that could achieve the state's goals without racial considerations.

In response, the challengers emphasized that the general election is still over a year away, and the candidate filing period could be extended without disruption. They argued that reinstating the previous map would not cause confusion, as it had been used in the last two congressional elections. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus further asserted that accepting Texas's interpretation of the Purcell principle would allow states to implement unconstitutional redistricting plans simply by timing their enactment close to elections.

The challengers also countered the state's claim that they should provide alternative maps, stating that the evidence of racial gerrymandering in this case is substantial and well-documented. They argued that the potential harm to voters from using a racially discriminatory map far outweighs any inconvenience to the state from reinstating the previous map. The Supreme Court's forthcoming decision will determine whether the Texas map remains in effect during ongoing litigation, coinciding with another significant redistricting case from Louisiana that may impact the application of race-based districts under the Voting Rights Act.