The US Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an injunction request from California Republicans who had asked the court to block the implementation of a new congressional district map before the 2026 midterm elections.
The justices issued an unsigned, brief order that denied the emergency request and included no recorded dissents, a common practice on the court's emergency docket, according to news reports.
A federal panel in the US Central District Court of California had upheld the voter-approved map by a two-judge majority, finding the redistricting was driven by political considerations rather than race.
The new map, approved by California voters under Proposition 50 in November, is designed to flip up to five Republican-held seats to Democrats in the midterm elections, news accounts said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated the court's action on social media, saying former President Donald Trump had "started this redistricting war" and would lose in November, and Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision "good news."
Implications And Reactions
The lawsuit challenging the map was filed by the Dhillon Law Group and led by Assemblyman David Tangipa and other Republican leaders, who argued the map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs wrote that the California Legislature had drawn lines based on race, specifically to favor Hispanic voters, a claim that the district court majority rejected, saying political motives predominated.
The Trump administration joined the challenge after the district court ruling, while the California Republican Party vowed to continue fighting the map's use in future elections, according to the reports.
Michael Columbo, counsel for the plaintiffs, said they would "continue to vigorously argue for Equal Protection under the law for all of California's voters," the party said in a statement.
One longtime Republican strategist, Jon Fleishman, said the ruling means "this year's elections will take place on the new lines shrinking the already very small Republican delegation from California," according to a post on X.
News coverage linked the California ruling to an earlier December decision allowing Texas to use its midcycle map, and Justice Samuel Alito had written that both states appeared motivated by partisan advantage.
Reporters noted that the California decision and the court's earlier Texas ruling have prompted discussion in other states about midcycle redistricting, with several states and parties cited as considering or contesting similar moves.
