The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican-led effort to block California Democrats’ “racially gerrymandered” congressional map on Wednesday.
In an unsigned order, the high court denied an application filed by the California GOP to pause a lower court ruling that permitted the contested map to take effect ahead of the 2026 midterms. The party — which was joined in its efforts by the Trump administration — alleged that the new map approved by Golden State voters last year is unconstitutional because California “expressly used race as the ‘predominant factor’ in placing ‘a significant number of voters within or without’ Congressional District 13.”
The justices did not provide an explanation for the decision.
“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas. He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in an X post Wednesday in response to the order.
The Trump administration and California GOP referenced comments reportedly made by political scientist Paul Mitchell in their complaints filed with SCOTUS. Mitchell was tapped last year by California officials to draw the state’s new map. As alleged in the DOJ’s filing, Mitchell “candidly admitted that he drew district boundaries to ‘”ensure that the Latino districts” are “bolstered in order to make them most effective, particularly in the Central Valley”’ … where District 13 is located.”
“[T]he mapmaker’s statements are direct evidence that race, not politics, predominated in the drawing of District 13,” the DOJ brief reads.
As referenced by Newsom, the Golden State’s new congressional map — which further gerrymanders the state in Democrats’ favor — was passed to offset potential gains resulting from Texas Republicans’ approval of a new congressional map that’s expected to bolster their party’s prospects in the 2026 elections. Similar to California’s case, the Supreme Court shot down legal challenges aimed at blocking the Texas map’s enforcement ahead of the November contests.
“The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the Supreme Court ruled in its December order in the Texas case.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion in the matter, in which he — joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — noted the “strong inference that [Texas’] map was indeed based on partisanship, not race.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
