WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled for Texas and its GOP leaders on Thursday, clearing the way for the state to use a new election map in 2026 that is expected to send five more Republicans to Congress.

The justices set aside, for now, a 2-1 ruling by district judges who called the state’s map a racial gerrymander. Thursday’s vote was 6-3 along the usual lines, with the conservative justices in the majority and the three liberals in dissent.

The court’s five-paragraph order said the district judges “failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature.”

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in a concurring opinion.

Texas lawmakers had said they acted out of partisan motives, not racial ones.

“Today’s order disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge — that put aside every consideration except getting the issue before it right,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in dissent. “And today’s order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race. Because this Court’s precedents and our Constitution demand better, I respectfully dissent.”

She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The decision bolsters Republicans in their bid to retain control of the House, and it’s a setback for Democrats and voting rights advocates.

It is consistent with the conservative majority’s view that drawing election districts is a “political question” left to state lawmakers, not judges. But in the past, the court also said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the 14th and 15th Amendments.

In response to the Texas mid-decade redistricting, California Gov. Gavin Newsom won voters’ approval for redrawing his state’s congressional districts with the aim of electing five more Democrats in 2026.

On Nov. 21, Texas state’s attorneys filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court, urging the justices to act quickly to block the lower court’s ruling.

They argued the new election map for Texas was drawn based on partisan advantage, not the race of the voters. And they said a further delay would disrupt the next election because Dec. 8 is the filing deadline for candidates.

They cited the so-called “Purcell principle” as grounds for setting aside the district court ruling because it came to close to an impending election.

The Texas mid-decade restricting arose in July.

“Texas has also made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it,” the Supreme Court ruling said. “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. The District Court violated that rule here.”

Acting at the behest of President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for a special session of the Legislature to redraw its 38 congressional voting districts with the aim of ousting five Democrats from the House of Representatives.

As justification, he cited the “constitutional concerns” raised by Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.

She contended the state had several unconstitutional “coalition districts” which had a “non-White” majority made up of Black and Latino voters.

Voting rights advocates said Texas Republicans followed her view and redrew districts near Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth to erase those where Latino and Black voters formed a majority.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown said the evidence showed the Texas “Legislature had redistricted not for the political goal of appeasing President Trump nor of gaining five Republican U.S. House seats, but to achieve DOJ’s racial goal of eliminating coalition districts.”

If so, he said, the new map should be set aside, and the state should use the 2021 map drawn by the GOP.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday announced an investigation into what he called a “troubling incident,” in which a midwestern school allegedly vaccinated a child without their parent’s consent.

In a video statement on X, Kennedy said that HHS is taking “decisive steps” to defend parents’ rights to guide their child’s health decisions following the alleged incident.

“A school administered a federally funded vaccine to a child without the parent’s consent and despite a legally recognized state exemption,” he said. “When any institution — a school, a doctor’s office, a clinic — disregards a religious exemption, it doesn’t just break trust, it also breaks the law.”

“We’re not going to tolerate it,” he added.

RFK JR. ACCUSES BIDEN ADMIN OF PUTTING ‘SPEED OVER SAFETY’ IN MIGRANT CHILD CASES

Kennedy did not identify the state, the school or the vaccine said to be involved.

Kennedy said that the Trump administration will ensure that health care providers and institutions will not ignore parental rights when it comes to their children’s health.

“We will use every tool we have to protect families and restore accountability,” he said.

WEST VIRGINIA RESTORES EXCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS REASONS FOR SCHOOL VACCINE EXEMPTIONS AFTER LATEST COURT RULING

Kennedy said HHS is launching compliance reviews of major providers and health care systems to ensure that they give parents timely access to their children’s information. He said a letter will be issued reminding providers of “their clear legal duty” to share medical records with parents — with “no delays, no secrets, no excuses.”

A second letter from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) went to HRSA grant recipients, stressing that federal dollars require compliance with laws protecting parental rights.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

HHS is also reviewing how states and districts process medical and religious exemptions to ensure the federally funded Vaccines for Children program complies with federal and state law.

Kennedy added that parents may file complaints with the HHS Office for Civil Rights if they believe their rights — or their children’s — have been violated.

SACRAMENTO — As the lone Republican on stage, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco stood out as the only vocal supporter of school vouchers during a gubernatorial candidate forum Wednesday focused on education.

“If you are deciding where you want to eat dinner, you choose the restaurant with the best food, and the other restaurant is not going to get your service until they change their policies,” Bianco said. “I will be the only person offering voucher systems for all of your kids.”

His remark, prompted by a question about how to best support rural students, earned booing and a couple of cheers from the crowd at the California School Boards Assn.’s annual conference in Sacramento.

Voucher systems, which provide public money to parents to pay for private school tuition, are highly controversial. Supporters believe vouchers offer new opportunities for students and create a competitive environment that encourages all schools to improve. Opponents argue it takes away needed funding from public schools.

During the event, candidates discussed a range of issues that impact learning, including public school funding, teacher shortages and achievement gaps.

The candidates at the forum included: Bianco, former State Controller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon and California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

While many California voters remain undecided on who to support in the 2026 governor’s race, Bianco narrowly led the field in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. The top Democrat in the survey was former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter. Tied for third place were former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, and conservative commentator Steve Hilton.

A spokesperson for the school boards association said all candidates running for governor were not asked to participate because it would have been more difficult to manage. The association instead invited the candidates it considered most viable based on several factors, including name recognition and previous offices held.

All of the candidates agreed on one overall message: The state’s current system is failing the roughly 5.8 million K-12 students enrolled in public schools.

“Something is broken,” said Villaraigosa. “Information is the currency of our economy and yet we got too many kids who can’t read and write. And when you look at who those kids are, they are disproportionately poor, disproportionately of color, and it is unacceptable in a state this rich.”

Each candidate offered slightly different takes on how to help.

Calderon called for more parental involvement and urged schools to improve outreach efforts and work hand-in-hand with families. He said addressing the state’s housing crisis was also crucial.

“You cannot have an achievement gap that you narrow,” he said, “if there is not secure housing for people. If you have uncertainty in the home and you don’t know where you are sleeping at night, then how are students going to succeed?”

Thurmond said more revenue streams were needed to support the school system.

“I am going to tax billionaires so we have more revenue for California’s schools,” he said, adding it was time for the ultra rich to “pay their fair share.”

Bianco disputed the assertion that more funding was needed and pointed out California is the fourth-largest economy in the world.

“We have never, never had a revenue problem,” he said. “Our problems are 100% a spending problem.”

To help with the teacher shortage, Thurmond proposed developing two million housing units on surplus school-owned land to provide educators with affordable living options.

Yee said she would prioritize general workforce housing for the public sector but not educator housing on school property. She explained she did not want school districts to become landlords.

Yee said she would focus on improving teachers’ healthcare and creating a safer and healthier working environment in the classroom. She vowed to value input from educators.

“The local perspective that you all have about how to improve student achievement is what needs to inform state policy,” she said. “What we have instead is just a lack of recognition, frankly, at the state level.”

All candidates shared reservations about California’s mandate phasing out gas-powered school buses by 2035, with most calling for a longer timeline or more exemptions. Bianco said the mandate should be nixed entirely because the government should not dictate what types of vehicles are used.

The forum was held at Sacramento’s SAFE Credit Union Convention Center near the state Capitol. The school boards conference brings together more than 3,500 school board members, superintendents and other education leaders from across the state.