This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), according to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), the case challenges the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting plan, which the League of United Latin American Citizens says was drawn primarily to maximize Republican representation and to diminish minority voting strength.
Both parties argue that the map may violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, specifically sections 2 and 5, by either using race as a predominant factor or by failing to provide effective minority opportunity districts.
Background and question before the Court
According to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), according to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), in 2003 the Texas Legislature adopted a new congressional district map that increased the number of districts likely to elect Republicans from 20 to 22, moving roughly eight million people and abandoning compactness standards.
According to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), according to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), the plan eliminated one of the four African‑American opportunity districts and altered a Hispanic opportunity district, replacing it with a sprawling “land‑bridge” district (District 25) that links Latino populations in Austin and McAllen.
The central legal question is whether the 2003 redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act by using race as a predominant factor or by failing to provide effective minority opportunity districts under sections 2 and 5.
- [1] dea58c1c7197b73d9d28-r1-6963a134bbb7706f.pdf, p. 4
- [2] dea58c1c7197b73d9d28-r1-6963a134bbb7706f.pdf, p. 5
- [3] dea58c1c7197b73d9d28-r1-6963a134bbb7706f.pdf, p. 41
- [4] dea58c1c7197b73d9d28-r1-6963a134bbb7706f.pdf, p. 73
- [5] dea58c1c7197b73d9d28-r1-6963a134bbb7706f.pdf, p. 40
- [6] dea58c1c7197b73d9d28-r1-6963a134bbb7706f.pdf, p. 54
What each side argues
League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants)
According to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), according to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), the redistricting plan was drawn solely to maximize Republican seats, disregarding compactness and segregating voters by race and politics.
According to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), according to League of United Latin American Citizens (Appellants), the plan eliminated an African‑American opportunity district and altered a Hispanic opportunity district, replacing it with a non‑compact “land‑bridge” district.
According to Appellants (Nina Perales), according to Appellants (Nina Perales), district 23 was redrawn to create a razor‑thin Latino majority (50.9 % Latino voting‑age population) by removing 100,000 Latinos, constituting an excessive use of race.
State (Ms. Perales) (Appellee)
According to State (Ms. Perales), according to State (Ms. Perales), race may be used in redistricting only when it serves a legitimate purpose, such as creating a minority‑opportunity district under the Voting Rights Act.
According to State (Ms. Perales), according to State (Ms. Perales), district 25 was created as an offset to preserve a Hispanic opportunity district and to comply with preclearance requirements under section 5.
Appellee (Mr. Cruz)
According to Appellee (Mr. Cruz), according to Appellee (Mr. Cruz), the central issue is determining whether elected legislatures or federal courts have the primary constitutional responsibility for redistricting.
According to Mr. CRUZ, the district court found that the former District 23 was not an effective minority‑opportunity district.
According to Mr. CRUZ, the State’s argument includes compliance with section 5 preclearance and addressing section 2 vulnerabilities.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked the parties to focus on the removal of Latino voters and the district court’s finding that the motive was political, not racial.
According to Justice Souter, the justice probed whether the State’s use of race was justified by Section 5 preclearance concerns and Section 2 compliance.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired about the numerical impact of the redistricting plan.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- dea58c1c7197b73d9d28-r1-6963a134bbb7706f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.