By Trendsetter Tribune 
In a major legal victory for Governor Gavin Newsom, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, that California may proceed with its newly drawn congressional map for the upcoming midterm elections. The decision, issued without any noted dissents, rejects emergency appeals from the California Republican Party and the Trump administration, who had argued the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The ruling sets the stage for a “tit-for-tat” electoral battle, as California’s map is expected to net Democrats five additional seats—effectively offsetting the five seats Republicans are projected to gain from a similar mid-decade redistricting in Texas.
The Arguments: Partisanship vs. Race
The central legal question was whether the map, enacted via Proposition 50 in November 2025, was motivated by a desire to help a political party (which is legal under current SCOTUS precedent) or to target voters based on race (which is not).
- The GOP/Trump Allegation: Opponents argued the map was a “pernicious use of race,” specifically claiming that lines were drawn to bolster Latino voting strength in the Central Valley to shore up Democratic support. They cited statements from mapmaker Paul Mitchell about “bolstering” Latino districts as evidence of racial intent.
- The State’s Defense: California’s attorneys argued the intent was “partisan advantage pure and simple.” They noted that the number of Latino-majority districts remained exactly the same (16 districts) and that the Latino voting-age population actually declined in several of the contested areas, including the 13th District.
The “Texas Precedent”
The Court’s decision appears to mirror its December 2025 ruling in Abbott v. LULAC, which allowed Texas to use a Republican-drawn map despite lower court findings of racial discrimination.
- Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote that the impetus for the maps in both Texas and California was political.
- Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 (Rucho v. Common Cause) that federal courts cannot block partisan gerrymanders, the “political” nature of the maps essentially shields them from federal judicial intervention.
Redistricting Impact: The Race for the House
With the legal hurdles cleared, both parties are now focused on the high-stakes 2026 midterms.
| State | Likely Seat Shift | Political Impetus |
| Texas | +5 Republican Seats | Redrawn by GOP Legislature to maintain House control. |
| California | +5 Democratic Seats | Enacted via Prop 50 to “fight back” against Texas’s move. |
| National Total | Neutral / Wash | The two states effectively cancel out each other’s gains. |
Reactions from Sacramento and D.C.
- Gov. Gavin Newsom: Celebrated the ruling, stating that Donald Trump “started this redistricting war” in Texas and “will end up losing out” in the November midterms.
- California GOP: Party strategist Jon Fleishman warned the decision means this year’s elections will occur on lines designed to “shrink the already very small Republican delegation.”
- The Trump Administration: The Department of Justice, which joined the lawsuit to block the map, did not immediately comment, though Trump’s legal team had previously described the map as “tainted” by unconstitutional motives.