Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to California Gerrymandering

The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the new California congressional maps drawn to favor Democrats.

In November, California voters approved Proposition 50 to temporarily scrap the redistricting commission, allowing the Democrat-controlled Legislature to draw maps that could net Democrats another five House seats in the 2026 midterms.

Mid-decade redistricting in states could affect which party wins control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November.

California Republicans sued over the redrawn maps, alleging they relied mostly on race to create districts in violation of the 14th and 15th amendments.

In the case of California Republican Assemblyman David Tangipa v. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the court said in an unsigned opinion, “The application for writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.” There was no dissent.

The Trump administration urged the high court to block the redistricting plan. Solicitor General John Sauer argued in a brief that California’s recent redistricting is “tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

“Of course, California’s motivation in adopting the Prop 50 map as a whole was undoubtedly to counteract Texas’s political gerrymander,” Sauer wrote. “But that overarching political goal is not a license for district-level racial gerrymandering.”

Newsom, a Democrat, heavily pushed the redistricting as a means to retaliate against new maps in Texas that favored Republican congressional candidates. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the Texas redistricting effort as well.