The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted California to implement its newly drawn congressional map for this year’s midterm elections, a decision with notable political consequences as Democrats and Republicans continue competing for control of the House of Representatives.
In a brief, unsigned order released on Wednesday, the Court declined an emergency request by the California Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The party had argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution, claiming it was shaped primarily by racial considerations rather than partisan strategy. A lower federal court had previously dismissed this argument.
California voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a political countermeasure to Texas’ GOP-favored map, which had been supported by President Trump to strengthen Republican prospects in maintaining their narrow majority in the House.
This ruling follows a decision issued two months earlier, when the Supreme Court allowed Texas to proceed with its own redistricting plan. That map was widely seen as improving Republican chances of securing up to five additional House seats and sparked a broader national debate over partisan gerrymandering.
Referencing the Texas case, the Court noted in December that several states had recently redrawn congressional districts in ways expected to benefit the dominant political party ahead of the 2026 midterms. Texas acted first, and California’s map was adopted in response, with the stated aim of counterbalancing Texas’ approach.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, observed that the primary motivation behind both states’ redistricting efforts appeared to be straightforward partisan advantage.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that claims of partisan gerrymandering fall outside the scope of federal court review.
While the Trump administration had supported Texas’ redistricting efforts, it opposed California’s plan, describing it as influenced by unconstitutional racial considerations. The administration also argued that California’s case differed from Texas’ due to the timing of candidate filing deadlines and the availability of alternative maps proposed by the California Republican Party and federal officials that would have achieved similar partisan objectives.