Texas just got the Supreme Court’s green light on a congressional map that’s got liberals fuming and conservatives cheering.

The Hill reported that Texas redrew its congressional districts, potentially tilting five seats toward the GOP, but Justice Elena Kagan and her fellow liberal justices are crying foul over what they see as racial gerrymandering.

This saga kicked off when Texas Republicans, with Gov. Greg Abbott’s stamp of approval, passed a new congressional map designed to bolster their party’s House presence.

President Trump’s call for red states to redraw maps for partisan gain after the upcoming midterms only fanned the flames, turning Texas into a battleground for national politics.

Six groups of plaintiffs didn’t sit idly by—they challenged the map, alleging it unfairly carved up districts based on race.

A three-judge federal panel in Texas held a nine-day hearing, ultimately ruling that the map likely violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by splitting communities along racial lines for Republican advantage.

Federal Judges Rule Against Map

Texas, of course, pushed back, insisting there was no racial motive—just good old-fashioned politics at play.

The case rocketed to the Supreme Court, where the majority sided with Texas, arguing the lower court overstepped by meddling in an active primary campaign and disrupting the federal-state balance in elections.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a biting retort, pointed out that Texas’s map-drawing was driven by “partisan advantage pure and simple,” no different from what California does for Democrats—and, frankly, isn’t that just how the game is played?

But Justice Kagan wasn’t having it, delivering a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson that could’ve been written in fire and brimstone.

She accused the majority of dismissing the lower court’s meticulous work, stating, “Today’s order disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge.”

Kagan went further, lamenting how the ruling “disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.” Isn’t it curious how often “partisan goals” seem to align with questionable district lines?

California Responds with Its Own Map

Meanwhile, as if on cue, California voters approved their own map, one that could shift five seats toward Democrats, proving this redistricting chess match is a two-way street.

Back in Texas, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion scolded the federal panel for causing “much confusion” by inserting itself into the primary process, a move conservatives might see as a necessary check on judicial overreach.

But let’s be honest—when maps are drawn with such clear partisan intent, confusion is the least of our worries.

So where does this leave us? Texas gets its map, California gets theirs, and the tug-of-war over congressional power continues while voters are left wondering if their voices even matter in this high-stakes game of political cartography. If this isn’t a wake-up call to rethink how we draw these lines, what is?