Abbott v. Perez
In brief
Texas largely won, although State House District 90 remained an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 25, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- The Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the lower court’s redistricting orders and that the lower court wrongly required Texas to disprove discriminatory intent when the 2013 Legislature adopted plans based largely on court-drawn interim maps.
- Who it affects
- The decision largely preserved Texas's 2013 congressional and state House maps. Voters in the affected districts could keep those boundaries, except that House District 90 remained unconstitutional.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court reversed the rulings invalidating several districts under the Voting Rights Act, but upheld the finding that State House District 90 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander; Texas largely prevailed.
The case addressed when a state may adopt court-drawn temporary voting maps and how courts assess claims of intentional racial discrimination in redistricting.
Question presented
1. Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas' duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the Governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days. 2. Whether the Texas Legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect. 3. Whether the Texas Legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region;? 4. Whether the Legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan.
What the Court decided
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. Texas's maps largely remained in place, while the finding concerning State House District 90 remained effective.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Abbott v. Perez?
- The Court reversed lower-court rulings against several Texas districts. It upheld the ruling that State House District 90 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
- Who was affected by the Abbott v. Perez decision?
- Texas voters in challenged congressional and state House districts were affected. Most of the 2013 map remained intact, except for House District 90.
- What happens next after Abbott v. Perez?
- The Supreme Court's action is complete. Texas largely kept its maps, but the unconstitutional finding involving House District 90 remained in effect.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.