Updated Aug. 16 with new reactions from legislators

A federal court has ordered Texas to redraw its congressional district map after finding it had twice been intentionally drawn to discriminate against minorities -- a ruling that the state has vowed to challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In March, the three-judge panel in San Antonio invalidated three of the state's congressional districts drawn in 2011 because they intentionally discriminate against minorities. But the court did not order those districts redrawn because it still needed to rule on whether they had been fixed after a court-ordered remedial map-drawing process in 2013.

In a 107-page order released Tuesday, the court unanimously ruled that two of those districts --District 27 in Corpus Christi, represented by Republican Blake Farenthold, and District 35 in Austin, represented by Democrat Lloyd Doggett -- were again drawn with discriminatory intent in 2013. Judges have ordered them redrawn.

"The discriminatory taint was not removed by the Legislature's enactment of the Court's interim plans, because the Legislature engaged in no deliberative process to remove any such taint, and in fact intended any such taint to be maintained but be safe from remedy," the ruling read. "The Legislature in 2014 intentionally furthered and continued the existing discrimination in the plans."

In a statement, Doggett said that "what Republicans did was not just wrong, it was unconstitutional." The two districts, the court said, violated a prohibition on discrimination in the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

But because the decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court, Doggett said he would seek reelection in his district and continue representing his current constituents.

In a written statement, Farenthold said he believed the court had erred in its decision and that he trusted the Supreme Court would "get it right."

"No matter what the Supreme Court decides, I plan to run for re-election," Farenthold said.

Plaintiffs in the case -- which include minority lawmakers and civil rights organizations -- had also challenged the fairness of districts drawn in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, arguing that the state had "packed and cracked" minority communities in North Texas. "Packing" refers to a process of including as many minorities in one district as possible to dilute their voting power, while cracking means the state had selectively taken minorities out of certain districts to achieve the same goal.

D-FW districts untouched

Plaintiffs alleged that the state had packed District 30, represented by Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson, by creating "fingers" from surrounding Anglo-majority districts that reached into urban and suburban Dallas and Tarrant counties to crack minority communities. The state's drawing of the original map, plaintiffs argued, limited minority-majority districts, when two or three more could have been drawn in addition to District 30.

The court sided with the state on those challenges, saying discriminatory issues had been resolved in the redrawing process by creating District 33, now represented by Democrat Marc Veasey, which withdrew many of the encroachments into minority communities and was an "appropriate remedy for the cracking, without going further."

The court said the plaintiffs failed to prove that blacks and Hispanics were voting cohesively in North Texas and therefore could not establish the requirement to create "coalition districts" that would allow the two groups to create more minority opportunity districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Echoing the state's argument, the court said that "in an area with many minority communities, it is inevitable that some minority communities will remain cracked, and they cannot all be placed into a minority opportunity district."

"Because cracking this community has not been shown to intentionally or in effect prevent the creation of an additional opportunity district or to minimize minority influence, uncracking is not required," the order said.

The court also left intact the southwest Texas District 23, represented by Republican Will Hurd, saying that it allowed Latinos an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice and that "there is no evidence of intentional discrimination/dilution."

State, plaintiff reaction

Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was disappointed with portions of the ruling and vowed to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the fairness of the state's congressional maps.

"We appreciate that the panel ruled in favor of Texas on many issues in the case. But the portion of the ruling that went against Texas is puzzling considering the Legislature adopted the congressional map the same court itself adopted in 2012, and the Obama-era Department of Justice did not bring any claims against the map," Paxton said in a written statement. "We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to decide whether Texas had discriminatory intent when relying on the district court."

Gov. Greg Abbott's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Critics of the state's maps said the decision validated their claims that Republican lawmakers had stacked the odds against minorities in the state.

"Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans deliberately discriminated against Texans of color in redistricting. They didn't just cheat to get an edge in a silly game, they stole the voice of Latino Texans," Gilberto Hinojosa, the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party said in a written statement. "Republicans initiated a deceitful legal strategy to deliberately silence Texans from having a voice in their own government. Today, the Court unanimously agreed."

Dallas Rep. Rafael Anchia, who leads the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, which is a plaintiff in the case, said "intentional discrimination is a bad habit for the Texas Legislature," citing court rulings in the state's redistricting process and the state's voter identification law.

"Texas failed to act for too long. Thousands of Texans have cast their vote under unconstitutional maps," Anchia said in a written statement. "Partisan politics compromised our electoral maps, and as a result, every Texan lost."

Veasey, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said: "After years of discrimination against minority Texans, the court was generous to allow the Texas legislature the ability to submit new maps that adhere to the courts' findings. It is my hope that legislative leaders do not waste this opportunity and finally reverse course on their record of intentional discrimination against Texas voters."

Three days to decide

The court gave the state three days to decide whether and when the Legislature will take up redistricting in an effort to remedy the discriminatory issues. If the Legislature chooses not to do so, court hearings to consider a remedial plan will begin on Sept. 5.

The court asked both parties to consult with their experts and map drawers to come up with solutions that would "remedy the violations" found in the districts "yet minimize the effect on adjoining districts."

Plaintiffs had also challenged Texas' maps for statehouse elections. The panel did not issue a ruling on those maps on Tuesday.

Caroline Kelly contributed to this report.