The original issue: Federal court invalidates part of Texas congressional map
Before Tuesday’s decision, the judges had already ruled that the Texas Legislature sought to weaken the strength of Latino and black voters while drawing state House and congressional districts in 2011, immediately following the 2010 U.S. Census. But the 2011 maps never actually took effect.
Amid legal wrangling over the Legislature’s maps, the court drew temporary maps ahead of the 2012 elections. Texas lawmakers formally adopted those maps in 2013 and have used them for the past three election cycles.
What does the VRA and Shelby County defeating preclearance have to do with gerrymandering districts in Texas? The latter happened in 2011, the former in 2013. What Texas did in 2013 was bow to the court's own maps from 2012. As you can see, the timeline does not add up in the manner you described. Texas is a result of action taken in 2011 following the 2010 census.
Is the SCOTUS going to rule the court has no authority on this matter, due to the changes in the VRA and preclearance? That'd be quite interesting. But then the courts often claim the power of the Constitution itself in deciding that people have been wronged. Abortion, for example. Even if Congress and the President moved to expressly ban it, courts would overrule both branches. As with that, so too can the courts decide voters have been wronged and claim ultimate power in deciding how to right those wrongs.
As courts are definitvely above the law, they do not need the VRA to slam Texas over gerrymandering.
That's not quite accurate, either-
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/20/145532526/high-court-scraps-lower-courts-redistricting-maps
https://www.thenation.com/article/t...ght-shows-why-voting-rights-act-still-needed/
Texas Repubs gamed the system, made a SCOTUS ordered interim map permanent, thus bollixing attempts to change it.
When the SCOTUS ruled in Shelby a few weeks later they were locked in. Their ruling in 2011 presaged that, indicated the direction they intended to take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
2010 was really the first redistricting of the computer age. Capabilities will be much greater in 2020. Analysts can collate all kinds of information in ways previously impossible & use them to great effect to stymie honest democracy should they so choose, disconnecting the will of the people from their representation in even greater measure. I really don't think that the SCOTUS has the vaguest comprehension of those capabilities. They pit the limited capabilities of the federal judiciary against very, very high end computer capabilities in the hands of people who really don't care about honest democracy at all. They just care about winning.