Which federal courts issued rulings altering Texas redistricting plans and on what dates?

1. A three‑judge federal panel in El Paso halted the 2025 map (key ruling and date)

On November 18, 2025, an El Paso‑based three‑judge federal panel issued an order blocking Texas from using its newly drawn 2025 congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections and directed that the 2021 congressional lines be used instead ^{[1] [2]}. Multiple outlets report the court’s injunction and the November 18 date as the operative moment that altered Texas’s redistricting plan for the upcoming cycle ^{[5] [6]}.

2. The court’s legal finding: “substantial evidence” of racial gerrymandering

The majority opinion concluded there was “substantial evidence” that the Legislature’s mid‑decade redistricting illegally diluted the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters—language cited repeatedly across coverage and in the panel’s opinion written by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown ^{[7] [3] [4]}. That factual finding is the legal hook allowing federal courts to police racial gerrymanders even though partisan‑gerrymandering claims are limited by prior Supreme Court precedent ^[3].

3. Who sat on the panel and the split in the decision

Reporting notes the injunction came from a three‑judge panel that decided 2–1, with Judge Jeffrey Brown writing for the majority and at least one judge dissenting or signaling disagreement—coverage mentions a dissenting view filed separately by the third member of the panel ^{[8] [9]}. The makeup and split matter because three‑judge panels in redistricting cases frequently arise under complex jurisdictional rules and can accelerate appeal paths.

4. Immediate practical effect and the timeline pressure

The panel ordered that Texas proceed under its 2021 map for the 2026 election, a time‑sensitive instruction given candidate filing deadlines in early December; outlets emphasize both the practical disruption and the expectation of a rapid appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ^{[4] [10]}. Texas officials said they would appeal, and reports anticipate an expedited legal fight given the approaching election calendar ^{[7] [11]}.

5. Competing narratives: plaintiffs, state, and national politics

Civil‑rights groups and Democratic lawmakers hailed the ruling as a victory for voters of color, saying the 2025 plan “stripped power” from Black and Brown communities ^{[12] [13]}. State officials and GOP supporters argued the move was a partisan response and pledged to appeal to the Supreme Court, framing the Legislature’s action as legitimate political redistricting rather than racial discrimination ^{[14] [11]}. The reporting makes clear both legal and political motives are in play ^{[9] [15]}.

6. Broader national context and tit‑for‑tat redistricting

Coverage places the Texas ruling in a nationwide redistricting scramble: Texas’s mid‑decade map prompted counter‑moves in other states (notably California) and spurred similar efforts in Missouri and North Carolina, intensifying a partisan redistricting arms race ^{[1] [15]}. Many articles link the Texas action to pressure from the Trump administration and to a July DOJ letter that critics say pushed Texas to redraw specific districts—an evidentiary point cited by the panel ^{[16] [10]}.

7. Limitations of available reporting and what isn’t yet covered

Available sources do not mention the full text of the panel’s order beyond the “preliminary injunction” phrasing, nor do they provide a complete listing of all judges’ names in the public snippets beyond Judge Jeffrey Brown; the earlier material also does not include the appellate filings’ current status or any stay applications that may be pending at higher courts (not found in current reporting). That means some procedural details—such as exact wording of remedies, timing of any emergency stays sought, and the status of a Supreme Court docket entry—are not available in the cited reports ^{[1] [2]}.

8. What to watch next

Expect an immediate appeal trajectory: Texas officials have said they will seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, and outlets indicate the litigation will move quickly because of candidate filing deadlines; observers should watch for emergency stay motions, any prompt Supreme Court action, and whether the injunction is upheld or stayed pending appeal ^{[11] [4]}. Given the panel’s finding of racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court’s response could shape how mid‑decade plans are litigated nationwide ^[3].