The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court Thursday to block California's new congressional redistricting map, arguing that the voter-approved boundaries constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates equal protection principles.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that California's map, known as Proposition 50, "is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander." The state has acknowledged the map was designed to create five new Democratic seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as a direct response to Texas creating five new Republican seats through its own redistricting process.
The filing represents the latest development in a high-stakes redistricting battle that has exposed deep partisan divisions over voting rights and electoral representation. The Trump administration's position on California stands in stark contrast to its support for Texas's redistricting efforts, which faced similar constitutional challenges.
Just two months earlier, the Trump administration submitted a brief supporting Texas's request to implement its new congressional map after a lower court ruled that the Texas boundaries unconstitutionally sorted voters based on race. In December, the Supreme Court granted Texas's request over dissents from the court's three Democratic appointees.
The California challenge originated when a group of Republican voters approached the Supreme Court earlier this week, asking the justices to prevent the state from using the new map in upcoming elections. The challengers argued for what they termed a "narrow injunction" that would preserve the status quo by temporarily reinstating the congressional boundaries California used in the previous two election cycles.
A three-judge district court had previously rejected the Republicans' constitutional challenge to Proposition 50. The lower court found that the new map did not rely on race as the primary factor in drawing 16 congressional districts. Instead, the district court majority emphasized that when California voters approved the map in a November special election, "the pros and cons" of the redistricting plan "were outlined in purely political, partisan terms."
In his brief to the Supreme Court, Sauer acknowledged the political motivations behind California's redistricting efforts. "California's motivation in adopting the map as a whole was undoubtedly to counteract Texas's political gerrymander," he wrote. "But that overarching political goal is not a license for district-level racial gerrymandering."
The solicitor general pointed to public statements by Paul Mitchell, an outside consultant who drew California's new boundaries, "in which he expressly acknowledged drawing district lines based on race." This evidence, according to the Trump administration, demonstrates that racial considerations improperly influenced the redistricting process.
The constitutional challenge centers on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from making race the predominant factor in drawing electoral districts. While political gerrymandering remains largely beyond judicial reach following the Supreme Court's decision in *Rucho v. Common Cause*, racial gerrymandering continues to face strict constitutional scrutiny.
The district court had concluded that California voters' approval of Proposition 50 essentially cured any racial predominance that may have infected the boundary drawing process. However, the Trump administration and Republican challengers argue that voter approval cannot legitimize what they characterize as fundamentally unconstitutional district lines.
The timing of the California challenge adds urgency to the dispute, as the state prepares for upcoming congressional elections under the new boundaries. The Republican challengers have emphasized they seek only temporary relief that would preserve existing district lines while the constitutional questions are resolved.
California's redistricting efforts were explicitly framed as a response to Texas's creation of additional Republican-leaning congressional seats. State officials defended the approach as a necessary counterbalance to what they characterized as partisan manipulation of electoral boundaries in other states.
The case highlights the broader national debate over redistricting practices and their impact on electoral competition. With control of the U.S. House of Representatives potentially at stake, redistricting battles in major states like California and Texas carry national political significance.
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will hear the California case or grant the requested emergency relief. The justices' handling of the Texas redistricting dispute in December, where they allowed implementation of the contested map, may provide insight into their approach to the California challenge.
Legal observers note the potential contradiction in the Trump administration's simultaneous support for Texas redistricting and opposition to California's efforts, particularly given similar constitutional claims in both cases. The administration's position reflects broader partisan battles over voting rights and electoral representation that have intensified in recent years.
The outcome of the California redistricting dispute could influence similar challenges nationwide as states continue to redraw congressional boundaries following demographic changes and political shifts. The case also tests the boundaries of federal intervention in state redistricting processes, particularly when racial gerrymandering claims intersect with acknowledged political motivations.