A fierce legal battle has erupted over California’s newly drawn congressional map, with the Department of Justice making a startling accusation before the Supreme Court: that the map illegally prioritized race over other considerations during its creation.
The DOJ argues the map, approved by California voters through Proposition 50, is tainted by an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” Solicitor General John Sauer is urging the Court to immediately halt a lower court ruling that previously upheld the map’s legality, claiming a critical violation of the Voting Rights Act.
This challenge wasn’t initiated by the DOJ itself, but rather by state Republicans who filed suit against Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In a surprising turn, the DOJ intervened – siding with the Republicans in this high-stakes dispute.
California’s legal team fiercely defends the map, accusing Republicans of using claims of racial gerrymandering as a pretext after failing to defeat Proposition 50 at the ballot box. They contend the Republicans haven’t met the exceptionally high legal standard required to prove race was the primary driver behind the redrawn districts.
This case is part of a larger, growing trend of mid-decade redistricting conflicts as states grapple with shifting populations and political landscapes. The fight echoes a similar battle waged over Texas’s map last year, which Democrats also alleged was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The Supreme Court previously sided with Texas in December, a decision that drew sharp dissent from the Court’s liberal justices. Governor Newsom, in a bold response, then announced California would redraw its map specifically to counter the perceived gains Republicans had achieved in Texas.
Democrats openly acknowledge the California map is strategically designed to give them a significant advantage – a projected five-seat boost – heading into the 2026 midterm elections. However, the DOJ argues that political advantage stemmed *from* the illegal prioritization of race, not as a separate goal.
Specifically, the DOJ focuses on District 13, arguing it was “clearly drawn ‘on the basis of race.’” Solicitor General Sauer points to statements made by the mapmaker, Paul Mitchell, who reportedly stated the district was intended to strengthen the Latino vote in California’s Central Valley.
The urgency of the situation is paramount. Republicans have requested an immediate response from the Supreme Court, as candidates are scheduled to begin filing paperwork under the new map on February 9th. The Newsom administration has until the end of January to respond, leaving the Court to potentially issue a decision soon after.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences, not only for California’s congressional representation but also for the future of redistricting battles across the nation, and the delicate balance between political strategy and constitutional law.
