Supreme Court lets California use new congressional map in midterms

The U.S. Supreme Court on February 4, 2026, declined to block California's newly drawn congressional map, which could potentially secure five additional House seats for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. The decision allows California to proceed with the new district lines for most of its 52 House districts in the 2026 elections. The map was created in response to Texas Republicans' mid-decade redistricting efforts aimed at maintaining GOP control of the House. California officials sought to counterbalance the five new Republican-favored seats in Texas by drawing a map that would benefit Democrats. The new lines were enacted through Proposition 50, a ballot measure approved by California voters in November 2025. However, a group of California Republicans filed a lawsuit alleging that the map was unconstitutional, claiming that the state legislature relied predominantly on race in the redistricting process, favoring Latino voters and violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Trump administration supported the lawsuit, arguing that the map constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A divided panel of three federal judges upheld the map, finding that California lawmakers were motivated by politics rather than race. Judge Josephine Staton, writing for the majority, stated that Proposition 50 was a political gerrymander designed to flip five Republican-held seats to Democrats. California Republicans sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to stop the use of the new districts during the 2026 election cycle and to require the state to use the 2021 congressional lines adopted by an independent redistricting commission. The Trump administration backed the GOP voters, arguing that race was used as a proxy for politics, and that California's redistricting was tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. California officials countered that Republicans were challenging the state's map while defending Texas' new voting boundaries to ensure GOP control of the House. They argued that the Supreme Court should not intervene in the political fray. Lawyers for the League of United Latin American Citizens, which supports the new lines, emphasized the disruptive impact of changing the redistricting map during an active primary campaign. The Supreme Court's decision comes amid a broader context of redistricting efforts across several states, with Democrats in Maryland and Virginia also working to redraw congressional maps, and Republicans in North Carolina and Missouri approving plans to shift Democrat-held seats to the right. In Texas, a three-judge panel blocked the state from using its redrawn House districts, finding them to be racially gerrymandered, but the Supreme Court restored Texas' new congressional voting lines in December 2025. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that partisan advantage was the predominant factor driving state lawmakers in both Texas and California.