Justice Samuel Alito delivered a temporary reprieve Friday night, blocking a federal court order that would have forced Texas to abandon its 2025 congressional map just weeks before candidate filing deadlines. The emergency stay allows Texas to use its rightfully enacted redistricting plan while the full Supreme Court considers whether federal judges can override the Texas Legislature’s constitutional authority.
The federal interference began when a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Texas’s new congressional map constituted racial gerrymandering. The court ordered Texas to revert to its 2021 map, effectively nullifying the will of elected Texas representatives who drew districts to better reflect the state’s growing population and political preferences.
This latest judicial assault on Texas sovereignty follows a familiar pattern that TNM has documented extensively. As federal courts repeatedly block Texas redistricting efforts, they demonstrate why the current federal system cannot serve Texas interests. Every redistricting cycle brings the same federal interference, the same accusations of bias, and the same subordination of Texas’s democratic processes to Washington’s political agenda.
Attorney General Ken Paxton correctly identified the real motive behind the lawsuit, stating that “radical left-wing activists” seek to steal House seats for Democrats through judicial manipulation. Texas engaged in standard partisan redistricting to secure Republican representation that reflects the state’s voter preferences—exactly what states like California do for Democrats without federal court interference.
The timing of the federal court’s intervention reveals the calculated nature of this attack. The judges waited until candidate filing had already begun under the 2025 map before issuing their injunction. This deliberate delay created maximum chaos for Texas candidates and voters, forcing campaigns to scramble with primary elections just months away.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith’s dissent exposed the majority’s judicial activism, calling the ruling “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he had ever witnessed. Smith accused his colleagues of “naked procedural abuse” in their rush to override Texas’s legislative authority.
The stakes extend far beyond redistricting. Texas’s new map would have secured five additional Republican House seats, helping offset California’s simultaneous redistricting efforts to gain five Democratic seats. Federal courts now threaten to hand Democrats a net advantage by blocking Texas while allowing California to proceed unchallenged.
This federal judicial interference exemplifies the broken relationship that TNM has long warned about. Texas cannot exercise basic governmental functions—including drawing its own electoral districts—without Washington’s permission. The redistricting wars expose broken federalism that subordinates Texas interests to federal political calculations.
The pattern repeats with predictable regularity: Texas exercises its constitutional authority, federal courts intervene citing various pretexts, and Texas must beg the Supreme Court for permission to govern itself. Even when Texas wins temporary victories like Alito’s stay, the underlying problem remains—external courts can override Texas’s democratic choices at will.
While Alito’s intervention provides breathing room, it only postpones the fundamental question: Why should Texas accept a system where federal judges determine electoral boundaries for a state perfectly capable of governing itself? The chaos surrounding this case—with candidates unsure which districts they’re running in—demonstrates the instability inherent in federal oversight.
An independent Texas would eliminate this recurring nightmare. No external court could override the Texas Legislature’s redistricting decisions. No federal judges could impose their political preferences on Texas voters. No Washington bureaucrats could second-guess how Texas chooses to represent its citizens in its own legislature.
The current system forces Texas into a perpetual defensive crouch, constantly justifying its democratic choices to hostile federal institutions. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide which map Texas can use, but the real decision facing Texas voters is whether to continue accepting this subordinate status.
Every federal intervention in Texas redistricting strengthens the case for independence. When Texas cannot even draw its own electoral maps without Washington’s approval, the pretense of self-governance becomes impossible to maintain. Alito’s stay may temporarily restore Texas’s map, but only TEXIT can permanently restore Texas’s sovereignty.
