Texas came to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking the justices to clear the way for it to use a new congressional map intended to increase the chances that Republicans can retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. On Tuesday, by a vote of 2-1, a three-judge district court in Texas barred the state from using the map in the 2026 elections, concluding that the map unconstitutionally sorts voters based on race. Texas Solicitor General William Peterson urged the court to pause that ruling, telling it that “[t]he confusion sown by the district court’s eleventh-hour injunction poses a very real risk of preventing candidates from being placed on the ballot and may well call into question the integrity of the upcoming election.”

Peterson asked the justices to put the three-judge district court’s ruling on hold by Dec. 1; he also asked the court to issue an order, known as an administrative stay, that would temporarily pause the ruling to give the justices time to consider the state’s request. In an order distributed shortly after 7:30 p.m. EST on Friday night, Justice Samuel Alito – who fields emergency requests from the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas – granted the administrative stay and instructed the challengers to file their response by 5 p.m. EST on Monday, Nov. 24.

Nuts and Bolts is a recurring series by Stephen Wermiel providing insights into the mechanics of how the Supreme Court works.

Washington is well-known for its acronyms, and the Supreme Court is no exception. One example that usually signifies that something went awry at the court is the “DIG.” It stands for the procedure by which a case is “dismissed as improvidently granted.” While that may sound dry, such dismissals can be of considerable significance.  

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court continues to churn through its relist rolls. True to our prediction that the case was a “likely grant,” the court granted review in one-time relist Noem v. Al Otro Lado, which presents the question whether a noncitizen who is stopped on the Mexican side of the border has nevertheless “arrive[d] in the United States” and thereby become eligible to apply for asylum. 

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Although many criticisms have been made of the Supreme Court’s rulings on its emergency docket, one that has not received enough attention is the court’s failure to follow well-established principles for staying a preliminary injunction, which – while it may sound technical – has enormous importance. This has been evident in many shadow docket decisions, but was particularly evident in the court’s Nov. 6 ruling in Trump v. Orr. In Orr, the court, by an apparent vote of 6-3, stayed a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from implementing a rule requiring that passports indicate a person’s sex at birth.

Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In its defense of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting access to birthright citizenship, the Justice Department claims that the government’s policy would bring the United States in line with the modern global trend. It is true that most countries do not grant citizenship at birth to people born within their borders with as few restrictions as the United States. But that isn’t new: The United States has been a global outlier since the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1868. 

Understanding which countries grant citizenship primarily based on the location of birth, and which don’t, helps make sense of the 127-year-old approach that the Justice Department is asking the court to reconsider. This also reveals the troubling history of why certain countries have chosen not to recognize birthright citizenship in the first place.