The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to block California’s newly redrawn congressional map. The decision clears the way for the map to be used in the 2026 midterm elections.
The ruling rejected an emergency request from the California Republican Party. Republicans had asked the court to halt a map they argue unlawfully favors Democrats.
In an unsigned order issued Wednesday, the justices rejected an emergency request from the California Republican Party that sought to halt implementation of the new map. The court did not provide an explanation for its decision, and no justices publicly dissented.
The ruling allows California to move forward with congressional districts that Democrats say could deliver as many as five additional seats in the U.S. House. Those potential gains could offset Republican advantages expected from a recently approved redistricting plan in Texas.
California Republicans argued the map amounted to racial gerrymandering prohibited under federal law. Their challenge was supported by the Justice Department, which filed a brief siding with the GOP. State officials countered that blocking the map would amount to the court intervening in partisan politics, especially after allowing Texas to use a Republican friendly map.
California voters authorized the new map in November 2025 through the approval of Proposition 50. The measure followed Texas redistricting efforts that were encouraged by President Donald Trump and aimed to expand Republican representation in Congress.
In January, a three judge federal panel rejected Republican claims that the California map was racially motivated. The court found no evidence of unlawful gerrymandering and ruled that the referendum was a legal response to partisan redistricting efforts in Texas. Judges noted that the stated goal of the legislation behind Proposition 50 was to counter Texas and gain additional Democratic seats, a goal the new map achieved.
The Supreme Court’s decision follows a similar ruling in December, when it allowed Texas to proceed with its revised congressional map. In that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion stating that the driving force behind both the Texas and California maps was partisan advantage, which the court has previously said is not unconstitutional.
Alito emphasized the importance of certainty ahead of the 2026 elections and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. As with the California ruling, the court did not formally uphold the Texas map but permitted it to remain in place while litigation continues.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated the ruling, saying it was a response to Republican led redistricting efforts. In a post on social media, Newsom accused Trump of starting a redistricting battle and said Democrats would prevail.
Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the U.S. House, leading Democrats 218 to 214, with three seats vacant. The outcome of redistricting fights in states like California and Texas could play a significant role in determining control of Congress after the 2026 elections.
Legal challenges to the California map may continue, and the issue could return to the Supreme Court in the future. The justices are also expected to issue a decision later this year in a separate Louisiana case that could further shape how race-based redistricting claims are handled nationwide.