Federal judges allow California to use new US House map ahead of 2026 election

Supreme Court precedent is not something federal courts can strike down, and in a divided decision the three-judge federal panel agreed with the state, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove race was the predominant factor in the map’s design and emphasizing that partisan motivation alone, even if explicit, does not amount to a constitutional violation, a conclusion shaped heavily by past Supreme Court rulings that have removed federal courts from policing partisan gerrymandering claims, though one dissenting judge warned that at least some districts appeared to cross the constitutional line by using race as a proxy for political outcomes, a disagreement that underscores the fine and often controversial distinction courts must draw between political strategy and racial discrimination, and the ruling carries major political implications because California has the largest congressional delegation in the country and even small changes to district boundaries could shift several seats, potentially influencing which party controls the U.S. House after the 2026 midterm elections, with Democrats viewing the decision as a necessary response to redistricting moves in states like Texas while Republicans denounce it as an abuse of the redistricting process that undermines voter trust, and although the court’s decision allows the map to take effect immediately, opponents have signaled their intention to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning the issue may yet be revisited at the highest level, but unless overturned California candidates will campaign under the new district lines, making this ruling not only a legal milestone but also a practical turning point that highlights how redistricting has become one of the most powerful and contested tools in modern American politics.