The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for California to use a new congressional map intended to give Democrats five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, rejecting a Republican challenge in a brief order that highlighted the ongoing national battle over partisan redistricting.

In a one-sentence order, the justices turned down a request from a group of California Republicans that would have required the state to continue using the map in place for the last several federal elections while their challenge to the new map moves forward. There were no public dissents from the court's ruling.

The decision comes exactly two months after the justices granted a request from Texas to allow that state to use a new map intended to allow Republicans to pick up five additional House seats. In that case, *Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens*, the court's three Democratic appointees dissented from the Dec. 4 order that put a lower court ruling on hold.

The contrasting outcomes underscore the complex legal landscape surrounding congressional redistricting and the Supreme Court's approach to election-related disputes. Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a concurring opinion in the Texas case joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, acknowledged that "it is indisputable that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple."

California's path to enacting its new congressional map proved more complicated than Texas's approach. The California Legislature adopted the new map in August, but under the state constitution, an independent redistricting commission rather than the Legislature normally has the power to redistrict.

To circumvent this requirement, the legislation adopting the new map proposed a ballot initiative known as Proposition 50 that would amend the constitution to allow use of the new map from 2026 through 2030. California voters approved the initiative by roughly a two-to-one margin in a special election on Nov. 4.

Three days after the election, Republican challengers went to court to block use of the map. They argued that the map violated the Constitution because it relied too heavily on race in drawing 16 congressional districts that they claimed impermissibly favored Latino voters.

A divided three-judge district court, which Congress has tasked with hearing congressional redistricting cases, turned down their request and left the new map in place. Writing for the majority, U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton concluded "that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak."

The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene means California can proceed with implementing the new congressional boundaries for the 2026 elections and beyond. The ruling represents a victory for California Democrats who crafted the redistricting plan as part of their broader strategy to maintain and expand their influence in the House of Representatives.

The new map is expected to significantly alter California's congressional delegation composition. With five additional seats likely to favor Democratic candidates, the redistricting could help offset potential Republican gains in other states or provide Democrats with a crucial buffer in closely contested national elections.

The Supreme Court's handling of both the California and Texas redistricting cases reflects the ongoing challenge federal courts face in addressing partisan gerrymandering. In 2019, the court ruled in *Rucho v. Common Cause* that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymandering claims, finding them to be political questions beyond judicial review.

However, courts can still review redistricting plans under other constitutional provisions, including claims that maps impermissibly consider race or violate the Voting Rights Act. The California Republican challengers attempted to frame their objection around racial considerations rather than partisan advantage.

The district court's rejection of the racial gerrymandering claim suggests that California successfully demonstrated its redistricting decisions were driven by legitimate factors rather than improper racial motivations. The three-judge panel found insufficient evidence that race was the predominant factor in drawing the contested districts.

With the Supreme Court's decision, attention now turns to how the new congressional map will affect the 2026 midterm elections. California's 52-member House delegation is already heavily Democratic, but the redistricting changes could further solidify party control over key districts.

The ruling also sets the stage for continued redistricting battles nationwide as states prepare for the next round of congressional reapportionment following the 2030 census. The Supreme Court's willingness to allow both California's Democratic-favoring map and Texas's Republican-favoring map to proceed suggests the justices remain reluctant to intervene in partisan redistricting disputes absent clear constitutional violations.

For now, California Democrats have secured a significant redistricting victory that could influence House control for the remainder of the decade, while Republicans must focus their efforts on challenging similar redistricting plans in other jurisdictions or advancing their own favorable maps in states where they control the process.