The Supreme Court’s latest intervention lets Texas use maps that dilute Black and Latino voting power.


[link removed]

The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse.

In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to adopt any standard to police partisan gerrymandering, and it even prevented federal courts from hearing that claim. Fast-forward through a census, six years of line-drawing, and a flurry of lawsuits, and predictably, our democracy has become much less fair.

Redistricting is supposed to take place once a decade, after the census. In fact, that’s why the census is written into the Constitution. But earlier this year, Texas abruptly drew new congressional maps in a gambit to squeeze out five extra seats for Republicans. It was in the middle of the decade and at the behest of someone who doesn’t live there (President Trump) — and all at the expense of Black and Latino voters. Even though 95 percent of population growth in the state came from those communities, the map’s main feature was fewer districts where those voters can elect their preferred candidates.

Bad, right? The very conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, temporarily blocking the map from being used in the upcoming election until a full trial could be held. Texas first resisted allegations of a partisan gerrymander, then insisted it was actually acting at the behest of the Justice Department for racial reasons, then said it was, in fact, a partisan power grab. (“I don’t see race. Just Democrats.”) Talk about a Texas two-step! Amid these gyrations, the court found it illegal.

Enter the Supreme Court. Last week it blocked the lower court’s ruling, thus allowing the election to go forward with freshly gerrymandered maps. It’s yet another brazen use of the shadow docket

[link removed]

— the Court’s supposed emergency docket (with limited briefing and no oral argument) — to hand Trump a win with only a few sentences of explanation.

Where does that leave things? The Texas seat grab set off a partisan arms race across the country. Furious Democrats acted. California voters overwhelmingly supported drawing new Democratic-leaning congressional districts there to counter the GOP gains in Texas. Republicans in Indiana and Florida are moving to redraw lines, while Democrats in Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia aim to do the same.

With all this headbutting, the gerrymander war of 2025 could turn out to be close to a wash in partisan terms. Moreover, voters may have their own ideas. If Democrats win big, as recent races have suggested is possible, the Republican gerrymandering might produce extra GOP losses. (The technical term for this, believe it or not, is a “dummymander.”)

All that sound and fury, in short, might signify . . . not exactly nothing, but not a decisive partisan gain.

That’s where the next big intervention by the Supreme Court would come in. And its impact could well be even more dramatic — and if possible, more harmful.

The Court seems poised to demolish the effectiveness of what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Two weeks ago, in Louisiana v. Callais, it heard arguments about whether the law’s Section 2 remains constitutional. For decades, that provision effectively barred states, particularly in the South, from enacting maps that dilute or cancel out the voting power of racial minorities. As our friend-of-the-court brief

[link removed]

pointed out, the provision has transformed both Congress and legislative bodies across the country. And the disparity in registration rates between white and Black voters dropped from nearly 30 percentage points in the early 1960s to 8 percentage points just a decade later. Now the justices seem ready to wreck Section 2 if not strike it down entirely.

This would not only mark a shameful retreat from federal action to protect racial equality and fair representation. It could have a dramatic and specific impact: A bad ruling, especially early, could be followed by another wave of redistricting in coming months, maybe even in time for the 2026 election.

As my colleague Kareem Crayton writes

[link removed]

, “The argument invites a return to the era when race was a barrier to entry for political representation — the cruel and painful experience of political exclusion that made passage of the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place.”

Nate Cohn of The New York Times has crunched the numbers

[link removed]

and predicts that an extreme Supreme Court ruling could allow Republican states to eliminate between 6 and 12 districts currently held by Democrats. That would be a margin larger than the House majority either party has had in recent years.

When politicians pick voters — whether based on race or politics — instead of the other way around, our elections become less fair and less democratic. The country would slide toward even greater division and balkanization. Republican voters in Massachusetts (where there are no Republican members of Congress even though Trump won 37 percent of the vote) have no party representation in Congress, while Democrats in Texas (where Kamala Harris won 42 percent) would have only about 7 of the state’s 38 seats. John Adams famously said that the legislature must be an “exact portrait of the people at large.” The current portrait doesn’t bear much of a resemblance.

So what’s the answer?

There must, above all, be national standards that apply to red states and blue states alike. The Constitution gives Congress that power. It should enact national redistricting rules that would ban partisan gerrymandering, bar mid-decade redistricting, and ensure fair representation for voters across the country. In 2022, it almost did: The Freedom to Vote Act

[link removed]

would have banned mid-decade redistricting and set other standards. And the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

[link removed]

would have strengthened protections against racially discriminatory maps. Both came achingly close to enactment.

And then the ideologues on the Supreme Court should stop meddling in elections. Over the past 15 years, the Court demolished campaign finance rules in Citizens United, wrecked the Voting Rights Act starting in Shelby County, and gave ex-presidents vast and unprecedented immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in office — thus ensuring no legal accountability for candidate, now president, Trump.

In a season when it seems increasingly clear that the justices plan to hand President Trump even more power, inexcusable rulings and interventions in partisan politics will leave a very sour taste for many voters. The Supreme Court itself, increasingly, will become an issue in American politics. That’s as it should be.





Campaign Finance Laws Could Take Another Hit

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging long-standing federal rules that limit how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates. It’s fair to question the effectiveness of these rules given the radical changes to the campaign finance landscape in recent decades. “But evaluating those sorts of policy considerations is the job of Congress, not the Supreme Court,” Eric Petry writes. Read more

[link removed]

SCOTUS Weighs Expansion of Presidential Power

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in another pivotal case, Trump v. Slaughter, which challenges the president’s decision to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Long-established federal law bars the president from firing the heads of independent agencies, such as the FTC, without cause. As Lauren Miller Karalunas told Roll Call, the justices “won’t just be deciding the technical question of whether President Trump can remove these officials, they’ll also be deciding a much more profound question of whether the president can override the will of Congress.” Read more

[link removed]

How to Fix NYC’s Jails

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani will inherit a jail system plagued by mismanagement that has allowed neglect, abuse, and violence to run rampant. Soon a federal court will appoint an outside administrator to help run the jails. “One important task for the incoming Mamdani administration is establishing a productive and optimal relationship with the remediation manager,” Hernandez Stroud writes, adding that the new mayor should also heed long-standing calls to shutter the notorious Rikers Island. Read more

[link removed]

The Legacy of Bush v. Gore

This week marks the 25th anniversary of Bush v. Gore, the infamous Supreme Court decision that “changed the trajectory of election law and painted the Court in a partisan light like never before,” Stephen Spaulding writes. He recaps the issues that marked the 2000 election, the controversy and confusion surrounding the justices’ opinions, and the case’s impact on the public’s trust in the Court and American democracy writ large. Read more

[link removed]





Podcast

How Congress Must Respond to Trump’s Boat Strikes

[link removed]

Over the past several months, the Trump administration has undertaken a congressionally unauthorized military campaign against supposed “narcoterrorists” in international waters. Recent reports that military officials ordered a follow-up strike that killed survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat have roiled Washington. Since the revelation, administration officials have scrambled to explain the legal justification and pinpoint who was ultimately responsible. In our new podcast episode, Brennan Center experts analyze the legality of the boat strikes and offer recommendations for how Congress can respond. Watch or listen on YouTube

[link removed]

// Spotify

[link removed]

// Apple

[link removed]

// SUBSTACK

[link removed]





News

Douglas Keith on how partisanship affects state supreme court elections // WISCONSIN WATCH

[link removed]

Kevin Morris on the repercussions of the latest challenge to the Voting Rights Act // BOLTS

[link removed]

Eileen O’Connor on the Justice Department’s demands for voter data // MOTHER JONES

[link removed]

Tom Wolf on the Supreme Court taking up the challenge to birthright citizenship // BLOOMBERG

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]