HUGE WIN FOR TENNESSEE GOP: Federal Court Rejects ACLU Bid to Block New 9-0 Republican Congressional Map

The left’s latest attempt to weaponize the federal courts against Republican redistricting efforts just hit a brick wall.

A federal three-judge panel on Thursday rejected an ACLU-backed effort to block Tennessee’s new congressional map, allowing the GOP-favored boundaries to remain in effect for the state’s August primary and November general election.

In a per curiam opinion in Amber Sherman et al. v. Tre Hargett et al., U.S. District Judge Benjamin Stivers, Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian, and Chief U.S. District Judge William Campbell DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

The court ruled that Black Memphis voters and activist groups are not likely to succeed on their claims that the map was drawn with racial intent to dilute Black votes under the 14th Amendment.

The judges made clear what everyone already knew: this was about politics, not race.

“Plaintiffs haven’t shown a discriminatory purpose, so they aren’t likely to succeed on the merits,” the panel wrote in its 15-page ruling.

Tennessee lawmakers adopted the new congressional boundaries during a special session in May. The state openly acknowledged that its political objective was to favor Republicans in all nine congressional districts and help the GOP maintain control of the U.S. House.

The new map dismantles Tennessee’s only Democrat-held congressional district, previously represented by longtime Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen, and divides heavily Democratic Memphis voters among three districts extending into conservative rural areas.

Democrats immediately screamed “racism,” but the court noted that the plaintiffs offered no direct evidence of racial motivation.

The plaintiffs also failed to produce an alternative map showing that Tennessee could accomplish its stated political objective without dividing Memphis.

That failure proved fatal.

Memphis has approximately 610,000 residents, while a Tennessee congressional district contains roughly 768,000 people. Because Memphis favors Democrat candidates by approximately 50 points, the court concluded that the city alone could carry a Democrat to victory regardless of the surrounding territory.

“As a result, the road to a reliably 9-0 map runs through Memphis,” the judges wrote.

The plaintiffs’ secondary claim that the map was “retaliation” against Black voters for their First Amendment activity was shut down as a non-justiciable political question under Rucho v. Common Cause. The Supreme Court has already rejected nearly identical attempts to rebrand partisan redistricting as free-speech retaliation.

Even if the merits were closer, the other preliminary injunction factors cut against the plaintiffs. Ballots have already been sent overseas. The court cited the Purcell principle and recent Supreme Court guidance that federal judges should not interpose themselves into a state’s ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representatives selected.

“The public interest also favors denying the injunction. The public is better served by a map created by its elected representatives, not forced upon them by unelected judges,” the panel wrote.

The ACLU responded by accusing Tennessee lawmakers of suppressing Black political power and vowed to continue litigating the case. The underlying lawsuit remains pending, meaning Thursday’s decision denies preliminary relief rather than finally dismissing every claim. The map, however, will govern Tennessee’s 2026 congressional elections. The ACLU acknowledged the ruling here.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that chaos erupted inside the Tennessee Capitol when Republican lawmakers passed the new map and angry protesters were removed from the gallery.

The meltdown only intensified when Democrat lawmakers began floating the secession of Memphis from Tennessee.

In May, Chief U.S. District Judge William Campbell also rejected an emergency request to temporarily block the map while the three-judge panel considered the case.

Democrats can scream “racism” every time Republicans use the same partisan redistricting tools the left has exploited for decades, but accusations are not evidence.

This time, the court demanded proof. The activists could not provide it.