Which federal court rulings affected Texas’s 2021 congressional and legislative maps and what did they order?

1. A lower‑court knockout: El Paso panel says new map likely racially discriminatory

In mid‑November a three‑judge federal panel in El Paso, by a 2–1 vote, concluded that the Texas congressional map enacted in 2025 was likely an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and issued an injunction barring the state from using the new map in the 2026 elections, directing instead that the 2021 map govern next year’s contests while the litigation proceeds ^{[1] [2] [5]}. The panel’s remedy explicitly ordered Texas to set aside the new map and proceed under the Legislature’s 2021 boundaries for congressional elections ^{[2] [1]}.

2. The grounds: what the judges said about race and intent

The district court majority found “substantial evidence” that race was a predominant motive behind how the districts were drawn — a legal standard for racial gerrymandering — and framed its injunction as necessary to prevent racial sorting of voters that would violate constitutional protections ^{[3] [5]}. The decision rested on plaintiffs’ claims brought by several civil‑rights groups on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters who argued the map was engineered to reduce their influence ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Immediate fallout: injunction timed amid filing and primary deadlines

The El Paso panel issued its order during the candidate‑filing period and ahead of primaries, which the state said would cause chaos and argued the court should have allowed the Legislature to adopt a different map instead of reverting to the 2021 plan ^[6]. The district court, by contrast, noted the Legislature’s own timing — enacting a mid‑decade map close to filing deadlines — as a reason courts had to act to protect voters’ rights ^{[7] [5]}.

4. Supreme Court intervention: Alito’s administrative stay pauses the remedy

Texas sought emergency relief at the U.S. Supreme Court; Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency applications from that region, signed an administrative stay temporarily blocking the El Paso panel’s order and permitting the 2025 map to be used while the high court considers the emergency appeal ^{[4] [3]}. The stay is expressly temporary and designed to give the full Court time to decide whether to let the lower‑court injunction stand ^{[3] [8]}.

5. Competing arguments and procedural law: Purcell and disruption concerns

Texas argued the district court’s remedy violated the Purcell principle — which counsels caution near elections to avoid judicial disruption — and said the court should have given the Legislature an opportunity to redraw rather than forcing a return to the repealed 2021 map ^[6]. The El Paso panel and plaintiffs countered that the Legislature itself created the disruption by adopting a mid‑decade map close to electoral deadlines and that failing to enjoin would perpetuate likely unconstitutional racial sorting ^{[7] [5]}.

6. Political context: stakes for control of the House and partisan aims

Reporters widely note the 2025 map was designed to create up to five additional Republican‑friendly House seats — a change advocates tied to former President Trump’s push to help Republicans hold the House — which is central to why both parties and national actors are litigating aggressively ^{[9] [10] [11]}. Plaintiffs framed the case as protecting minority voting power; state officials framed appeals as protecting electoral stability and legislative authority ^{[1] [6]}.

7. What’s next: temporary posture and longer litigation

For now, the Supreme Court’s administrative stay means the contested 2025 map remains in practical use while the challengers must respond and the justices decide whether to intervene — a short‑term pause that does not decide the underlying merits of the racial‑gerrymandering claim ^{[3] [4]}. The El Paso panel’s broader litigation on the 2021 maps and other state legislative redistricting issues continues, signaling a potentially prolonged legal battle regardless of any interim Supreme Court action ^[2].

Limitations and note on sources: reporting consistently documents the El Paso panel’s 2–1 ruling and the Supreme Court’s temporary stay; available sources do not mention a final Supreme Court decision or any factual findings beyond those emergency orders and the district court’s injunction ^{[2] [3]}.