Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What was Perez v. Abbott and what did courts rule in 2022 and 2023?
Executive Summary
Perez v. Abbott (commonly cited as Abbott v. Perez) was a major constitutional challenge to Texas’s post-2010 congressional and state-legislative maps that reached the U.S. Supreme Court; the Court’s 2018 decision narrowed the lower court’s findings and the litigation’s central rulings were effectively decided before 2022. There were no new landmark federal rulings in 2022 or 2023 specifically altering Perez v. Abbott’s core holdings, though Texas remained subject to other, separate voting-rights litigation in those years that often gets conflated with Perez/Abbott. [1] [2] [3]
1. How a 2010 redistricting fight became a Supreme Court test of racial gerrymandering and legislative intent
Perez v. Abbott began as a suite of challenges to Texas’s 2011 and 2013 congressional and state-house maps, with plaintiffs alleging intentional racial discrimination and unlawful vote dilution under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge district court in Texas found some districts unlawful and ordered remedial maps that were used in interim elections; the litigation focused on whether the 2013 Legislature had “purged” any taint of earlier discriminatory intent. The core dispute was whether later legislatures inherit unconstitutional intent from prior maps or can be treated as acting anew, a legal question central to proving discriminatory intent. This background set up the Supreme Court review that culminated in decisions resolving thresholds for proving intentional discrimination. [1] [3]
2. What the Supreme Court decided and what the lower courts then found
In its eventual Supreme Court ruling, the Court reversed certain findings of the three-judge district court, holding that the 2013 Legislature must be evaluated on its own intent and that the district court had overreached in several respects; as a result, several of the trial court’s remedies were undone or narrowed. After remand, lower courts continued to adjudicate particular districts and claims, and some district-court findings against specific districts persisted in portions of the record. The high court’s decision limited wholesale invalidation of maps based solely on historical “taint” and raised the bar for proving modern discriminatory intent, shaping how later challenges would be litigated. These holdings came out of litigation completed well before 2022. [1] [2] [3]
3. Why there were no new decisive Perez v. Abbott rulings in 2022–2023
By 2022 and 2023, Perez/Abbott’s principal legal questions had been resolved by earlier rulings and remands; courts were not issuing new landmark decisions altering the Supreme Court’s framework from 2018. The case did not generate new Supreme Court or major appellate rulings in those calendar years that changed the core outcome. References to Perez v. Abbott in 2022–2023 often recycle the earlier holdings rather than report fresh appellate reversals or new substantive pronouncements, which explains why researchers find little in-year case law specific to Perez for 2022–23. The litigation landscape instead featured follow-on or separate suits over new maps and voting rules. [2] [1]
4. What real litigation activity did occur in Texas in 2022–2023 and why it is easy to conflate with Perez
Texas saw multiple, separate voting-rights cases in 2022–2023—challenges to mail-ballot rules, enforcement actions over border structures, and other Section 2 or Civil Rights Act claims—that are distinct from Perez/Abbott but involve Governor Abbott or the state as defendant, producing apparent overlap in names. Notable examples include suits over SB1 mail-ballot provisions and enforcement actions the U.S. filed against Texas for actions on the Rio Grande; courts issued rulings in 2023 addressing parts of those statutes and injunctions, but these are separate doctrinal fights about voting procedure and federal enforcement rather than Perez’s intentional-discrimination framework. The multiplicity of Texas litigation during those years produces confusion in secondary reporting. [4] [5] [6] [7]
5. Why some sources appear to conflate Perez with other Perez or Abbott cases and what to watch for
Public records and database entries sometimes conflate different suits—Perez v. San Antonio, USA v. Abbott, and other Perez-labeled litigation—because “Perez” and “Abbott” are common names across Texas dockets. Some summaries attribute Fifth Circuit or district-court decisions from related but distinct cases to Perez v. Abbott, creating inconsistent narratives. Readers should check the docket numbers and the legal claims (Section 2 VRA, Fourteenth Amendment, Civil Rights Act, or RHA enforcement) to confirm which case is being discussed, and prioritize primary opinions or authoritative court summaries when distinguishing Perez/Abbott holdings from parallel Texas litigation. [8] [9]
6. Bottom line: settled doctrinal core, active related fights, and where to look next
The essential legal rule from Perez/Abbott—that a later legislature’s intent must be evaluated on its own terms and that historical “taint” does not automatically condemn successor maps—was decided before 2022 and remained the operative precedent through 2023. Texas continued to face new voting and election-law challenges in 2022–2023, but those were separate suits that sometimes involve the same parties or statutes, not a reopening of Perez’s core holdings. For updates, consult the original Supreme Court opinion and subsequent lower-court remands for Perez/Abbott, and follow contemporaneous dockets for named, separate cases (e.g., mail-ballot and enforcement suits) to avoid conflating outcomes. (p1_s