Federal Judges Uphold California’s New Congressional Districts in a Boost for Democrats

A panel of federal judges on Wednesday upheld California’s new Democrat-friendly, voter-approved congressional maps, a blow to the Republicans challenging the new lines.

Two out of three judges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California panel said that the plaintiffs, which include the California Republican Party and several California voters, “failed to show that racial gerrymandering occurred,” the main argument Republicans made in the case.

Democrats immediately cheered the ruling.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 - to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas - and that is exactly what this court concluded.”

The new congressional maps received overwhelming support from voters in the November 2025 special election, with more than 60% of ballots coming in in support. The maps could help Democrats net up to five additional seats in the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections, and are a part of a broader Democratic effort to counter Republican redistricting efforts nationwide.

In the ruling, Judge Josephine Staton said that following the panel’s review of evidence, the two judges concluded that the voters’ intent “was exactly as one would think: it was partisan.” But they added that there was not sufficient evidence to show that “the relevant decisionmakers — here, the electorate — enacted the new map for racial reasons.”

“The centrality of voters here distinguishes this case from nearly all precedent on racial gerrymandering,” Staton wrote.

The case could still work its way up to the Supreme Court. But in a December ruling that upheld the new Texas congressional district lines — which were not voter-approved — Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “the dissent does not dispute — because 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.”