A federal three‑judge panel rejected a request to block Tennessee’s newly approved congressional map, allowing the Republican‑favored boundaries to stand for the state’s August primary and November general elections.
The decision, issued in a per curiam opinion, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that their claims of racial intent to dilute Black votes under the 14th Amendment were unlikely to succeed.
Judges emphasized that the challenge was political rather than racial, noting a lack of evidence demonstrating a discriminatory purpose in the map’s design.
Tennessee lawmakers adopted the new boundaries during a special session in May, openly pursuing a strategy that benefits Republicans across all nine congressional districts.
The map removes the state’s only Democratic‑held district and splits Memphis—an overwhelmingly Democratic city—into three districts that extend into conservative rural areas.
Plaintiffs failed to present an alternative map that could achieve the same political objective without dividing the city, a shortfall that the court deemed decisive.
Because Memphis alone has a population large enough to secure a Democratic victory, the court concluded that the city’s inclusion in a single district would not alter election outcomes.
A secondary claim that the map retaliated against Black voters for First Amendment activity was dismissed as a non‑justiciable political question, following established precedent.
The court also cited logistical concerns, noting that ballots had already been mailed and that federal judges should not interfere with imminent state elections.
While the ruling denies preliminary relief, the underlying lawsuit remains pending; the new map will govern Tennessee’s 2026 congressional elections.
The decision underscores the court’s insistence on evidence in cases of alleged racial gerrymandering, a standard that plaintiffs were unable to meet.
