Let’s walk through what just took place because a lot of people did not expect it. A major victory came out of the Supreme Court, and it arrived right after a federal judge tried to interfere with the America First realignment. That effort began as soon as Texas approved its new congressional map. The map created five new GOP seats. Even getting that map passed was a spectacle because Texas Democrats ran away from the state to block a quorum, which means you have to have a specific number of members present to bring up a vote. You probably remember how absurd that looked. It slowed things down, but it did not stop anything. Republicans used their supermajority to pass the map, and Democrats immediately ran to the courts once it became law because that’s where Democrats go when they can’t get something done legislatively by the people. They rely on Democrat rogue judges ruling in their favor, and in this case, this judge violated the US Constitution.
You need to understand this clearly because every left-wing activist with a laptop will rush to claim that Texas Republicans acted out of racism, when the truth is that they ended a decades-long racial gerrymandering scheme that Democrats created and protected.
The League of United Latin American Citizens and several left-wing organizations filed a lawsuit that accused Texas of racial gerrymandering. They said the state used race to draw the lines and violated the Constitution. The claim collapsed the moment they made it, and here’s why. If lines protect black or brown voting blocs, the same critics say it is required under the Voting Rights Act because failing to do it dilutes minority votes. If a map benefits white voters, the very same people scream racial gerrymandering and insist it is unconstitutional. It is impossible to treat that as a serious argument. Democrats have turned themselves into the most reckless political operation in the country. Republicans will lose major ground if they refuse to confront it.
Here is the history of this in a nutshell. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed and signed into law. It was a very honorable bill that said that black Americans have the right to vote for who they want to represent them without being blocked by racist Democrats. In 1986, a case called Thornburg v. Gingles was ruled upon that said that if black voters live in a district where there are too many white voters in the same district, then their vote gets diluted by the overwhelming number of white people voting. That belief in itself is racist, but that’s for another story. The court ruled that Democrats could create what were known as majority minority districts. And what it did was it split up districts by taking black neighborhoods within a district, which could be 10 miles apart from each other, and connect them with only the width of a road for 10 miles to make up the district, so that black voters could get a member of Congress. Meanwhile, it broke up the entire district by diluting the number of people within that district when you created majority minority districts. So the people who were left over in that district had to bleed into the surrounding districts that already existed. In the long run, what it did was remove white members from Congress and add black members to Congress. It was as racist as the day is long, but nobody said anything because, obviously. What Republicans just did was go with maps that break up those racist Democrat districts, to make the districts full of people who live together in the community, regardless of race, because they have more in common with each other in a district.
The lawsuit went before a three-judge federal panel in El Paso. That is where the confusion began. Judge Jeffrey Brown ruled against Texas. He is a Trump appointee, which made the decision even more confusing. He wrote a long opinion that blocked Texas from using the new map. He told the state to revert to the old map. That previous map gave Democrats a much stronger advantage. It remains unclear how a judge like that gets appointed, but it does happen.
Here is problem number one. Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution states that state legislatures have the authority to create election laws, and that includes districting. That means that neither a judge nor a person in the executive branch has the authority to change election law. And for this judge to claim that the Republicans used race to redistrict without even mentioning that what they did was they broke up a series of racist gerrymandering by Democrats, denies belief in a Benevolent Being.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL
The panel split two to one. The Obama judge eagerly teamed up with Judge Brown, while Reagan-appointed Judge Jerry Smith delivered a dissent that practically left scorch marks on the page. He blasted Brown’s opinion as “the most blatant exercise of judicial activism” he had ever witnessed. He repeated the point and called it “the most outrageous conduct by a judge” he had ever seen. Then he took the gloves off entirely. Judge Smith said Brown might as well have admitted, “I’m a left-wing lunatic and I don’t like the fact that Texas Republicans are taking their state back.” It was one of the most devastating dissents in recent memory, yet the damage still hit. Texas was shoved back onto the old Democrat-friendly map for the midterms.
California Governor Gavin Newsom cheered and claimed democracy had somehow won. That alone told you how unserious the whole case really was. The truth is obvious. Rogue courts operate like overeager mall cops. They sprint toward anything that moves, try to flex authority no one actually gave them, and then get overruled the moment a real authority shows up.
That is what happened next. Texas went to the Supreme Court with an emergency appeal. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton confronted the activists directly. He said, “Radical left-wing activists are once again abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda, steal the US House for the Democrats.” The timing could not have been tighter. The candidate filing deadline in Texas is December eight. Campaigns are underway. Candidates have already gathered signatures under the new map. Early voting for the March primary is ninety days away.
Texas filed its emergency request, and in less than an hour, Justice Sam Alito stepped in. Late Friday night, he issued an administrative stay that wiped out the lower court’s ruling and put the Republican map back in place instantly. He gave the plaintiffs until Monday afternoon to explain themselves. After that, the full Supreme Court will decide whether the stay remains in effect through the election season. Most legal analysts already expect the High Court to keep the GOP map intact because of that whole Article I, Section 4 thingy that I discussed earlier in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has recently heard the case of Louisiana v. Calais. In that case, Calais said that the Ginsburg cases’ racial gerrymandering violates their 14th and 15th Amendment rights. And again, the legal experts all believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Calais. If that happens, the Democrats will lose up to 18 House seats overnight.
This fight goes far beyond Texas. It is about whether Republicans can keep the House during President Trump’s term, something that has happened only three times in all of American history. The party in the White House almost always loses midterm seats, yet Republicans have a rare advantage right now because mid-decade redistricting is reshaping the entire country. And the best part is that Democrats did nothing to earn a break. They have not learned a single lesson from their brutal losses in 2024. All they have done is recycle the same tired lies about Trump and Republicans, hoping rage alone will drag their voters to the polls.
Several states have already added GOP seats. Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, and, believe it or not, New Hampshire (if the RINO governor there ends her resistance to do it for the party) each added one. Florida is preparing to add three or four. Ohio may add two or three. South Carolina plans to add another. Indiana will likely add one. Even with California’s Prop 50 helping Democrats, Republicans still appear on track to gain seven to nine seats. If the Supreme Court removes the remaining Voting Rights Act limits added by Gingles, the GOP could gain as many as nineteen seats.
This redistricting wave could create a new political period shaped by the America First realignment. It could become the fourth time in American history that the party in the White House gains seats during the midterms.
There’s another point that blows this whole thing apart. In 2019, the Supreme Court already ruled that partisan gerrymandering is perfectly legal. Federal judges are not allowed to stop states from drawing maps that favor a political party. Judge Brown tried to wiggle around that ruling by pretending Texas used race instead of politics. Judge Smith tore that excuse to pieces. He pointed out the obvious. Mid-cycle redistricting is about political advantage. That motive is completely lawful. Republicans had every right to draw the map, and the activists knew it.
Justice Alito gave Texas a constitutional lifeline. The Republican map stays in place while the Supreme Court reviews the case. Most legal analysts think Texas will prevail.
The momentum is shifting in a major way. This ruling carries far more weight than the media is willing to say.
#supremecourt #texasnews #americafirst
