The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of California’s redistricting plan aimed at increasing the number of seats for Democrats, rejecting a challenge from the state’s Republican Party.
There were no objections to Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court offered no explanation for the decision.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Instead, the order consisted of a single sentence stating that the Republican application was “denied.”
Earlier in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure aimed at benefiting Texas Republicans to proceed.
Democratic officials in California praised Wednesday’s decision as fair, as Republican President Donald Trump is leading a nationwide effort to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favor.
“Donald Trump has said he is ‘deserving’ of five additional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.
“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he will lose again in November.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s comments, accusing Trump of starting a redistricting arms race that threatens to disenfranchise Democratic voters.
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in a statement.
vie for control of the House of Representatives
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a victory for Democratic efforts to counter Trump-led redistricting efforts that began in Texas last year.
Last June, reports surfaced that President Trump personally called politicians in Texas and instructed them to redraw congressional districts to favor Republicans in Democratic-held areas.
Each district elects one member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans have a narrow majority. Of the 435 seats, Republicans hold 218 and Democrats hold 214.
Texas, a Republican stronghold, overcame a walkout by Democratic lawmakers to move forward with approval of a newly revamped congressional map in August.
That prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counter the Texas effort.
Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase the number of seats for Republicans by five, the California ballot initiative known as Proposition 50 was also designed to increase the number of seats for Democrats by five.
California voters overwhelmingly passed the initiative in a special election in November, temporarily halting the work of the independent redistricting commission that previously drew the state’s congressional maps.
Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, framed Proposition 50 as a way to fight “fire with fire.”
But the new maps approved under Proposition 50 only apply until the 2030 election, and Newsom has promised to repeal them if Texas Republicans do the same with new maps.
Debate over gerrymandering
Pushing for redistricting to serve partisan interests, a process known as gerrymandering, has long faced bipartisan opposition as an attack on democratic values.
Redistricting typically occurs every 10 years after a new census is conducted to reflect population changes.
But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes ahead of the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are expected to be a referendum on President Trump’s second term. President Trump has already expressed concern that he could be impeached if Congress switches to Democratic control.
Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal unless it intentionally disenfranchises voters based on race. This is considered a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
Following the passage of Prop. 50, California Republicans sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.
They argued that the new map was designed to “particularly favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.
The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on Nov. 13 in support of the state Republican Party.
But Bonta, the California attorney general, insisted the rezoning process was legal. In a court filing, he argued that President Trump’s support for the lawsuit was motivated by self-interest.
“The obvious reason why Republicans are plaintiffs here, and why the current federal government has intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’ defense of the new map, is because the Republican Party wants to maintain its House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” the court filing states.
Mr. Bont also asked the Supreme Court not to “intervene in a political battle and give one political party a significant advantage” by overturning Prop. 50.
The California Democratic Party’s victory on Wednesday came as redistricting battles continue across the country.
Already, states such as North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps that favor Republicans. However, there was some backlash.
In December, the Republican-led Indiana Legislature rejected a partisan redistricting proposal despite pressure from President Trump to pass it.
