“If the Texas congressional maps that have been proposed are adopted, a large portion of my constituency will be in District 34,” Gonzalez said in a statement provided first to POLITICO. “I have received many calls from across South Texas encouraging me to run in this district. If in fact these are the final maps I will very seriously consider running in 34 and continuing my representation of South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley.”

House Republicans, who have identified Gonzalez’s current McAllen-based district as their top pickup opportunity in Texas, will welcome the news that Democrats are losing the power of incumbency in a tough battleground.

Gonzalez, who was first elected in 2016, said that he has over $2 million in his campaign account to use in a primary for the Vela’s seat. He also said if he changed districts he would “make certain that we have another candidate” that could keep his 15th District in Democratic hands.

Even before the GOP-controlled redistricting began, Gonzalez was likely to have a tough reelection. His current district, which includes McAllen and stretches north toward San Antonio, took a hard swing to the right last year.

Hillary Clinton won the seat by 17 points in 2016; but Joe Biden won it by just 2 points four years later. Meanwhile, Gonzalez saw his victory margin shrink to 3 points in 2020 against a opponent who spent less than $300,000. That candidate, Monica De La Cruz-Hernandez, is running again this cycle.

All three districts in the Rio Grande Valley saw a similar rightward shift in 2020 — something the incumbents attributed both to Trump’s surge among Latino men and some progressive Democratic policy proposals and slogans that did not play well along the border.

That made all three a target for GOP mapmakers in redistricting. Thus far, the state Legislature has acted somewhat conservatively, proposing turning Gonzalez’s district into a battleground and giving his neighbor to the west, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, a seat that Biden would have carried by 7 points.

Republicans’ map would turn the Brownsville-based seat held by Vela, who announced his retirement earlier this year, into one that backed Biden by nearly 16 points in 2020.

In a statement to POLITICO, Vela said: “I will endorse Congressman Gonzalez no matter which district he runs in.”

Gonzalez said he chose to run in Vela’s seat because the incumbent is retiring and because Vela absorbed some of his Democratic voters from Hidalgo County.

But Gonzalez has not yet cleared the Democratic primary field. He could still face carpetbagging attacks because his hometown of McAllen is in his old district, and he is also more moderate and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Four Democrats have filed to run for the seat. The most prominent one is Rochelle Garza, a civil rights attorney from Brownsville. But most will probably struggle to match Gonzalez’s war chest.

A trial lawyer by trade, Gonzalez also the ability to self-fund.

“So far, it’s working,” Netter said in arguing for a preliminary injunction against the statute and the state. “Its ploy to keep S.B. 8 out of court is an open threat to the rule of law … S.B. 8 imperils the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.”

Netter said the private-enforcement scheme is designed to scare abortion providers into refusing to aid women who want to exercise their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

“It’s designed to work through the turrets,” he said, apparently suggesting that the threats the law creates are deliberately hidden and unpredictable.

Soon after the law took effect on Sept. 1, the Supreme Court voted, 5-4, to decline a bid by abortion providers to block it. However, the justices signaled doubts about the constitutionality of the so-called heartbeat law, which seeks to ban abortions performed after a fetus reaches six weeks of gestational age — when cardiac activity is typically detected. The high court also left open the possibility of further legal action.

One challenge facing Justice Department attorneys in the new suit they filed on Sept. 9 is that they can point to no specific statute that gives the federal government the right to sue over a law like the Texas one. Netter and his colleagues have argued that a variety of federal agencies that deal with immigrants, prisoners or even members of the Job Corps are affected by the Texas law.

Another disputed question is whom the judge could order not to enforce the law, since it is set up to operate through private individuals filing suits in state court. Netter argued that those individuals are effectively agents of the state, so could be covered by any injunction that Pitman issues.

“They’re not truly private individuals trying to vindicate private interests in court. … They are state actors,” Netter said. “These individuals are state actors by virtue of the scheme that was developed by the state. … The state has deployed a series of tricks to avoid the Constitution directly in a way the state has acknowledged it could not accomplish directly.”

However, a lawyer for Texas denied that the law is unconstitutional. Will Thompson of the Texas Attorney General’s office said the law actually includes language that applies the current Supreme Court standard for abortion rights as long as that standard remains in effect.

“I’m sorry to see that the federal government’s pattern of hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric is continuing,” Thompson said. He argued that creating the prospect of being sued for something could hardly amount to an end run around the legal system.

“Nothing happens to a defendant in a heartbeat lawsuit until a state court has heard the case. This is not some kind of vigilante scheme,” Thompson said. “It is a scheme that uses the normal and lawful process of justice in Texas. … We don’t think the private plaintiff is put in the shoes of the state.”

Thompson argued that the suits are akin to ordinary “tort” suits, often filed over car accidents or slip-and-fall injuries. But Netter said that wasn’t the case because the potential plaintiffs here could be anyone, even those who have no connection to the person seeking the abortion or anyone else involved in the case.

The federal government has sued states before over immigration and land-use related issues, but lawyers for Texas argued that the federal government’s interest in this instance isn’t evident because there is no federal statute encouraging abortion. Thompson also noted that one statute aimed at preserving access to abortion facilities, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, doesn’t provide any legal mechanism for the federal government to challenge state laws.

“The federal government doesn’t have some purpose of promoting abortions or making sure more of them happen,” Thompson said.

The judge didn’t provide a clear indication of how he planned to rule, but at one point he expressed concern that the Texas law did seem intended to interfere with abortion rights while making it difficult to seek recourse in court.

“That’s what this statute was designed to do, was to find a proxy for the state that would insulate the state from the sort of judicial oversight that would ordinarily exist,” Pitman said.

Abortion rights advocates and the Justice Department contend that the threat of litigation under S.B. 8 has driven the few doctors who provide abortions in Texas to sharply restrict their work, forcing some of those seeking abortions to travel out of state.

But an attorney for several individuals seeking to preserve their rights to sue under the Texas law said that didn’t amount to an all-out prohibition on abortions.

“This is not a virtual ban or near-total ban on abortions in Texas,” said Andrew Stephens, an attorney supported by America First Legal, a group formed by former aides to former President Donald Trump.

Stephens said Texas clinics are still doing between about 40 percent and 60 percent of the number of abortions done prior to S.B. 8 taking effect.

“The effect is much less severe than they’ve told this court. … Many abortions still are being performed,” said Stephens. “We don’t think they’ve met their burden.”

However, Netter argued the Constitutional rights of women seeking to end a pregnancy after that point are still being violated, even if some abortions are going forward when women are less than six weeks pregnant.

Pitman didn’t indicate how long he would take to rule on the federal government’s request. It also remains unclear exactly what any injunction would look like. One possibility is it might cover state judges or court clerks. But at this early stage of the case, it wouldn’t be a final resolution of the legal issues. Thompson suggested that meant the law could still affect the actions of abortion providers, regardless of what the judge does now.

“The prospect of future liability … will continue to exist regardless of whether an injunction issues,” he said.

Talks between the speaker, the centrist senators, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the White House resumed in earnest Friday. White House officials met Thursday evening in Manchin’s office in the Capitol along with Sinema, but the West Virginia Democrat appeared unmoved after their meeting.

Those centrists want the bipartisan infrastructure bill to pass the House but are less keen on a sweeping spending package that could cost up to $3.5 trillion. House progressives, meanwhile, are threatening to tank the infrastructure legislation without certain guarantees on the multitrillion-dollar social safety net bill that would reform policies on child care, health care and climate change.

“The resolution is not here in this caucus — the resolution is with two senators, and the rest of the 98 percent of the Democratic Caucus,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal said, noting she’s been in touch with the White House “multiple times” since last night.

“I feel very confident that we’re going to be able to deliver both these things, but you’re gonna have to give us some time because it does take time to put together these kinds of transformational investments.”

While senior Democrats say they are making progress in talks, the framework remains unfinished and lawmakers are unlikely to see a final top line in their caucus meeting, according to multiple sources.

And Sinema is no longer physically in Washington, heading to Phoenix for a medical appointment, according to her office. She is staying in touch with the White House and Democrats remotely, though that means there won’t be another late night — for her at least — holed up in the Senate with negotiators.

“Last night, Kyrsten and our team offered the White House continued discussions and negotiations for this morning. We’re awaiting word from the White House for their availability,” her office said.

The impasse has left a signature element of Biden’s agenda in limbo and is exposing divisions among Democrats over the scale and scope of their agenda.

“We’re on a path” to have a vote Friday, Pelosi said as she entered the Capitol Friday morning, though she told reporters it would be “useful for us to have a conversation later today.”

But when Hoyer was asked if a vote were happening Friday, he said: “We’ll see.”

Pelosi and Democratic leaders punted a planned Thursday vote on the infrastructure legislation while negotiations continued with Senate moderates. Democratic leaders have hoped to strike a deal that would cost a total of $2.1 trillion, but Manchin remains firm at his $1.5 trillion top line, less than half of what progressives want in the final bill.

“I feel frustrated. I want to vote today on this on this package,” Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said. “I don’t know what’s gonna happen.”

Progressives have held firm on their demand to hold a vote on the social spending bill before the infrastructure legislation. They have repeatedly warned that they’ll sink the infrastructure bill if it comes to the floor before the social spending bill.

“We need a vote” rather than a framework agreement, said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she went into the caucus meeting.