“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Civil rights groups and others challenged a Texas redistricting plan for the 2026 elections as discriminatory.
What happened in this case?
As urged by President Trump, the Republican-controlled Texas legislature adopted a redistricting plan last year that will likely add five Republican House seats. Civil rights groups challenged the plan as racially discriminatory, and a three-judge federal court, including a district judge nominated by Trump, agreed and enjoined the plan. Texas took the case to the Supreme Court and, in a 6-3 shadow docket ruling discussed in this blog, stayed the lower court injunction as that decision was appealed.
On April 27, the Court entered a one-sentence order in Abbott v LULAC that threw out the lower court’s 160-page opinion and dismissed the case. There was no explanation at all, other than a brief reference to the previous shadow docket ruling. Once again, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, and the three Trump justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) made the difference.
.
What has been the reaction to the Court’s action and why is it harmful?
Supreme Court experts have already been critical of the Court majority’s action, while right-wing advocates have applauded it. Professor Steven Vladeck has noted that the majority had improperly reversed a thorough three-judge court opinion “without any detailed explanation” and again showed its abuse of the shadow docket procedure. Legal journalist Christopher Geidner pointed out that the action squarely contradicted Trump justice Barrett’s earlier claim that shadow docket orders are not used to “finally” resolve an issue, something that should occur only in a Supreme Courts merits opinion. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Brian Harrison called the action a “big 6-3 Supreme Court victory.”
This action by the Court is also harmful because it ensures that Texas’ redistricting plan will be in place for the 2026 elections, despite the detailed findings that it is discriminatory. It also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench