5 days ago - Like many other states in the American South after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, federal judges and the United States Supreme Court have struck down Texas's congressional and legislative districts on multiple occasions, including in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.

3 weeks ago - Although federal courts during the late 19th century remained painfully silent on the constitutionality of these antidemocratic measures, contemporary observers saw these redistricting efforts as more than a simple act of seeking partisan advantage. “It was the high-water mark of political ingenuity coupled with rascality, and the merits of its appellation,” observed one Black congressman who represented South Carolina’s 7th District. The political gains of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, sometimes called the “Second Reconstruction,” were made tangible by the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Since the 2000 census, there has been renewed mid-decade congressional redistricting activity by states. One widely known example of mid-decade redistricting occurred in Texas in 2003, when the state legislature redrew initial congressional boundaries that were adopted by a federal court in 2001.

Republican Gary Franks, elected in an overwhelmingly White district, strongly opposed majority-minority redistricting. He argued that majority-minority districts were unjust because they gave “some Americans a manufactured advantage over other Americans.” Franks, while still a member of the CBC, angered his CBC colleagues when he testified in federal court against a Georgia-based majority-minority district.

The cases included on this page are grouped by decade. Use the links below to learn more about the redistricting cases decided in each of the decades listed: 2020s: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Moore v. Harper, Merrill v.

The Brennan Center tracks and analyzes ongoing litigation about redistricting. ... When congressional and legislative maps are redrawn each decade, they often are manipulated to discriminate against communities of color or for partisan gain. Courts, both state and federal, play an important role in keeping these practices in check.

An overview of significant Supreme Court decisions on redistricting from the last five decades. The cases are grouped into four categories: population, a case relating to using a redistricting commission, cases relating to race and cases relating to partisanship.

The rules of the game have been laid down by the United States Supreme Court. In the 1960s, the Court said that everyone must play, and must redraw their legislative and congressional districts every ten years to take account of changes in the population recorded by the federal census.

1 week ago - Now Section 2’s coverage for redistricting practices hangs in the balance. Conflicts among the justices in the Louisiana case were evident from the start. The dispute was first heard in March 2025, but then in June the justices issued the unusual order calling for re-argument.

6 days ago - Supporters of the Rucho decision hailed the justices for keeping federal courts from being thrust into the highly politicized role of picking winners and losers in redistricting fights.

A separate federal court lawsuit, Hodges v. Albritton, No. 8:24-CV-879 (M.D. Fla. 2024) challenges the redrawing of two adjacent state senate districts in the Tampa Bay region, contending that both districts are now unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. On March 31, 2025, a three-judge panel granted summary judgment in favor of the state defendants with respect to one of the challenged districts but denied summary judgment with respect to the other district.

3 weeks ago - The Supreme Court has previously ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not reviewable by federal courts. While the Trump administration supported the Texas redistricting by Republicans, it opposed California's, describing it as "tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

In addition to various state processes, the legal framework for congressional redistricting involves constitutional and federal statutory requirements. Interpreting these requirements, in a series of cases and evolving jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings that have significantly shaped how congressional districts are drawn and the degree to which challenges to redistricting plans may succeed.

1 week ago - Explore how aggressive mid‑decade redistricting in Texas, California, and other states could reshape the 2026 midterms, alter the House majority, and revive fierce battles over partisan and racial gerrymandering.

The legal framework for congressional redistricting resides at the intersection of the Constitution's limits and powers, requirements prescribed under federal law, and the various processes imposed by the states. Prior to the 1960s, court challenges to redistricting plans were considered ...

3 days ago - On November 18, 2025, a federal court in El Paso, Texas ruled that the maps consisted an illegal racial gerrymander, and as a result, barred their use in the 2026 midterm elections. On November 21, the U.S.

This page provides state laws governing the timing of redistricting, including states that prohibit or allow mid-decade redistricting.