DOJ Moves to Mitigate Impact of Misguided Letter in Texas Gerrymandering Case

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed an amicus brief in support of Texas’ gerrymandered congressional map. This move comes amid ongoing legal scrutiny and a Supreme Court case regarding the map’s legality. The DOJ claims its earlier letter urging Texas to redraw districts was misinterpreted and not the reason for the state’s redistricting.

Background of the Texas Redistricting Case

On August 7, 2025, a Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting hearing took place at the Texas State Capitol in Austin. During this hearing, state officials discussed the newly drawn congressional map. This map has faced backlash for allegedly being racially gerrymandered.

Last week, a panel of three federal judges blocked Texas from using this map in the upcoming 2026 elections. The judges cited the DOJ’s letter as key evidence of racial gerrymandering. In their opinion, they stated that the map was drawn with racial considerations, contrary to Texas’ claims of partisanship.

Key Developments

• The DOJ letter asserted Texas should redraw specific congressional districts due to their racial makeup.
• Judges criticized the DOJ letter for containing numerous factual and legal errors.
• Texas lawmakers, including Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows, stated the map aimed to address concerns raised by the DOJ.
• Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by Donald Trump, authored the opinion blocking the map, with support from Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee.

The DOJ’s new brief attempts to argue that Texas acted independently of its directives. It contends that the state was pursuing a race-blind, partisan gerrymander rather than complying with DOJ instructions. This perspective challenges the judges’ conclusion that race played a significant role in the map’s creation.

Federal Judges’ Response to the DOJ

The federal judges portrayed the DOJ’s letter as a guiding document that Texas followed but questioned its reliability. They highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies presented by Texas officials, particularly Senate redistricting committee leader Phil King and mapmaker Adam Kincaid.

In the amicus brief, the DOJ defended its position, criticizing the judges for not assuming lawmakers acted in good faith. Furthermore, the department demanded that plaintiffs provide alternative maps that achieve partisan objectives without racial implications, arguing that the courts overlooked direct evidence of racial motivations.

Looking Ahead

The legal battle over Texas’ congressional map continues as the Supreme Court deliberates the case. The outcome will significantly affect future redistricting practices and the balance of political power in Texas.