The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Texas could forge ahead with its newly redrawn congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The initial order was unsigned, and declared that the lower court’s decision to block the map — which favors Republicans — had been made in error. A brief concurring opinion followed that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson joined together in dissent. The order opened with a brief explanation, noting that a three-judge District Court had granted the League of Latin American Voters’ request for an injunction — which would have prevented the state from implementing the new map — and stated that the Court intended to stay the injunction, as requested by the state of Texas. “The District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature,” the explanation read, in part. 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek. Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, argued that the lower court’s determination — that the Republican-drawn map was based on race rather than politics — was made in error. He wrote that it was “indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple” — and that being the case, the state should be permitted to move forward with that map. Thomas and Gorsuch agreed. “When the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted. Id., at 34; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 258 (2001). Although respondents’ experts could have easily produced such a map if that were possible, they did not, giving rise to a strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race,” their concurring opinion continued. Justice Kagan, in her lengthy dissent, complained that the ruling had declared the redrawn maps to not be based on race, as the lower court had found, but had instead justified them being drawn for political reasons. The ruling, she said, “disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.”

'Not much better today'

The Supreme Court allowed Texas’ redistricting maps to remain in place for the 2026 midterms in a 6-3 unsigned opinion Thursday. The maps could grant the GOP five additional seats in the House of Representatives. Thursday’s ruling comes after a lower court recently tossed out the maps, with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott appealing that decision. The decision was an ideological split, with the six conservative justices ruling in favor of pausing the ruling from a lower court. Three liberal justices dissented. Thursday’s move from the court has key implications for the midterms. At issue for the maps according to the lower court was a concern that the newly redrawn maps posed constitutional issues based on race. As the unsigned opinion of Abbott v. LULAC read in part, “Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors.” The opinion also mentioned that the lower court “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.” Texas is not the only state to consider redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms. California voters passed Proposition 50 last month to redraw maps to give Democrats a further edge in the Golden State in an effort spearheaded by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Those maps have also been challenged. Both sides of the political aisle have been pushing for redistricting in recent years, with President Donald Trump and JD Vance urging red states to redraw their maps. Vance has framed the matter about Republicans needing to act after years of “very aggressive Democratic tricks” on redistricting. The 2026 midterms look to be particularly consequential with Republicans narrowly controlling the House and with a slim majority in the Senate, though they do not have enough votes to overcome the filibuster. This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates. The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting Maps for 2026 Midterms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

'Abortion Is Everything,' the Children's Book You'll Want to Buy for Christmas

Leave it to The New York Times to try to channel its Fine People Hoax energy to once again twist President Donald Trump’s words to make him seem like a Bond villain who scoffs at the plebeians' struggles against inflation. Times White House correspondent Erica Green took hold of Trump’s comments on affordability during a Tuesday cabinet meeting, and bent them into a pretzel. “Trump Calls Affordability a ‘Con Job’ as His Edge on the Economy Slips,” read her ludicrous December 2 headline. It’s only until the fourth paragraph that Green gives a bit more context that completely upends the spin her headline generated, but still managed to spin that too. “Mr. Trump called the issue of affordability a ‘fake narrative” and ‘con job’ created by Democrats to dupe the public.”  No Erica, he was calling the hypocritical Democrats out for acting crusaders exploiting the term “affordability” on a crisis they themselves created under Joe Biden. And that’s not even taking into acccount the 1-2 percent projected GDP loss for Q4 growth as a result of the Democrat-led shutdown recently. He was not saying the word “affordability” in itself was fake. But hey, journalistic integrity and The Times make strange bedfellows anyway. Green even managed to tip her hand when she had the audacity to distort that Trump was unjustly attacking “Democrats who have championed the issue.” Great Caesar’s toga! It’s like saying someone who detonates a nuclear bomb on a city then promises to clean up the radioactive waste afterwards is a champion for peace! Listening to Trump’s comments clearly clarifies the context, not that Green cared anyway. “The word ‘affordability’ is a con job by the Democrats. I watched the other day where some very low IQ congresswoman talk[ed] about, ‘Affordability! Affordability! Affordability!’ She had no idea — their prices were much higher,” Trump said. He pointed to energy prices between his administration and his predecessor as one defining example. Watch and adjudicate for yourselves:   According to AAA, the highest recorded average price for regular unleaded gasoline was $5.016 per gallon in June 2022 under Biden. Another example is housing. As CNS News reported November 20, all five of the least affordable states for housing are all run by — you guessed it — Democrat governors. Meanwhile, the five most affordable states by comparison are all run by Republicans.  But Green, true to form, continued to ridiculously smear Trump along her phony angle: The comments marked something of a turnabout for Mr. Trump, who just last weekend appeared to acknowledge the salience of the issue, calling himself the ‘affordability president’ and promoting his efforts to bring down prices. Earth to Green: The reason why you’re making it seem like his comments were a turnaround is because you willfully butchered the context of his comments, which seems to be a very common practice at your publication.

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily approved the redistricting map in Texas for the midterm election over the dissent of the liberal justices.The 5-3 partisan vote means Republicans will likely gain several seats from Texas. The decision blocks a lower court injunction just as politicians begin to qualify for elections in the state.'Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law.' The court has not yet issued a permanent decision on the lawsuit, claiming that the redistricting effort pushed by Republicans is discriminatory and unlawful.Republicans hope the redrawn map will lead to five additional seats in the U.S. House, but Democrats have countered with their own redistricting effort, including one in California.The Trump administration is suing against the new district map in California."To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown previously wrote in the Texas case. "But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map."U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi praised the decision on social media. "Federal courts have no right to interfere with a State's decision to redraw legislative maps for partisan reasons," she asserted."A federal district court ignored that principle two weeks ago, and the Supreme Court correctly stayed that overreaching decision tonight," she added. "Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law, my Solicitor General John Sauer, and our team of lawyers for their excellent brief supporting Texas in this important case." RELATED: Gov. Hochul says New York is jumping into redistricting feud between California and Texas The redistricting effort in California was championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who campaigned to push the proposition by characterizing it as a chance for Californians to push back against President Donald Trump. The president accused them of rigging the election for the redistricting proposition, which passed easily. "The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED," Trump said at the time. "All 'Mail-In' Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are 'Shut Out,' is under very serious legal and criminal review." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Dumbo Gumbo: Leftist Pro-Illegal Alien Protesters Disrupt Council Meeting Over New Orleans ICE Surge

Rep. Ilhan Omar Claims She Knew Nothing About $250 Million Welfare Fraud Scheme

Erika Kirk Tells Forum It's Not a Gun Violence Problem We Should Be Worried About — It's Something Worse

Apple's executive board room will look significantly different in 2026, as Kate Adams and Lisa Jackson have both announced plans to retire.