May 15 (UPI) — The Texas Supreme Court refused to remove state Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, from office, despite the efforts of Gov. Greg Abbott after the 2025 redistricting showdown.
Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who once worked as an Abbott aide, wrote that the courts “have uniformly recognized that it is not their role to resolve disputes between the other two branches that those branches can resolve for themselves.”
“The courts’ institutional ‘reluctance … to involve themselves in contests of factional political power,’ a reluctance we reiterate and reinforce today, is a check on the judicial power ‘of ancient standing,’ not an optional preference we are at liberty to discard,” Blacklock wrote.
The fight stems from August 2025 when Texas began an effort to redistrict the state’s congressional seats to create more Republican-leaning districts. Democrats in the state’s legislature fled Texas to prevent a quorum in the House. They eventually returned, and the measure passed.
Texas House Democratic Caucus Chairman Gene Wu led the charge during the exodus of his party members, drawing the ire of Abbott. The governor had threatened to expel any Texas House members who fled the state, of whom there were more than 50.
Wu posted on X Friday: “Texas House Democrats refused to be complicit as Texas Republicans delivered Donald Trump the extra congressional seats he begged for, and now, Gov. Abbott’s final attempt at revenge has been put to rest.”
Texas House Democrats posted: “Today, we won. We’re not going anywhere.”
Republicans hold 24 of Texas’ 38 seats in the U.S. House, with one vacancy. The new map is expected to add five Republican representatives from the state.
Blacklock indicated the matter could be considered in the future.
“Whatever wrong may have been committed by the absent House members, the Texas Constitution’s internal political remedies, none of which involve the judicial branch, were sufficient to the task of restoring the House’s ability to do business,” Blacklock wrote. “Should those remedies unexpectedly prove inadequate in a future case, we might have occasion to consider whether any judicial remedy could ever be available in circumstances such as these.”