The stay application is at the link. 

In summary, Texas argues that the federal panel failed to provide the required deference to the legal redistricting plan enacted by the state legislature despite the fact that the state plan maintains the same number of minority opportunity districts and has not been found to violate Section 5 in the preclearance proceedings ongoing in the District Court of the District Court of Columbia. 

Texas accuses the federal panel of making unwarranted wholesale changes to the current map that included the unilateral and illegal drawing of constitutionally suspect coalition districts.  Texas asserts that the federal panel essentially ignored the Supreme Court mandate under Bartlett; a case not requiring the drawing of coalition districts or cross-over districts under the Section 2 analysis.

Texas asserts that the proposed interim plan drawn by the court so dramatically reconstructed the original plan that only 9 of the 36 congressional districts drawn by the legislature remain intact and the court has no legal justification to take such an activist role.

After reading the briefs, the interpretation of Upham v. Seamon may well determine how the Court rules.