Legal experts bashed the Supreme Court's unsigned order on Thursday that allows Texas to use an election map that significantly favors President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's order prohibiting Texas from using the map state Republicans created during a special session that eliminated five Democratic districts. The lower court found the map constituted a racial gerrymander, meaning that it considered the race of voters when lawmakers were outlining the districts.

The majority said in their opinion that the lower court committed "two serious errors" in its opinion by not showing enough deference to Texas' "legislative good faith" and failing to articulate an adverse impact on the plaintiffs.

Court watchers took to social media to share their displeasure with the order.

"They're not even trying to appear nonpartisan anymore," immigration attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick posted on Bluesky.

"Lines on a map won’t change the work I’m doing to fight for affordability, stop the healthcare cuts, get ICE out of our neighborhoods, and make sure the voices of working families in our district are heard," Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) posted on X.

"The Supreme Court just handed Texas Republicans at least 2 more House seats & possibly up to 5 despite the state GOP explicitly justifying their remap based on an unconstitutional use of race in redistricting," elections analyst Stephen Wolf posted on Bluesky. "Unsurprising from this court, and it's a bad sign for the upcoming Voting Rights Act case."

"The Supreme Court just failed this country," Texas state Rep. Ann Johnson, a Democrat, posted on X. "Despite clear evidence of racial gerrymandering, they upheld maps designed to rig the next election and silence communities of color."

"Texas clearly did a racial gerrymander, which is illegal," international relations professor Nicholas Grossman posted on Bluesky. "A district court found that Texas did a racial gerrymander, rejecting the new map because it is illegal. But the Supreme Court reversed it. Because? Must assume the gerrymanderers were acting in good faith (despite the evidence otherwise)."