The Supreme Court’s December decision upholding Texas’s congressional map — and Justice Samuel Alito’s remark that both the Texas and California plans were adopted for “partisan advantage pure and simple” — has sharpened a GOP challenge to California’s map. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawyers say the Texas ruling, particularly Alito’s concurrence, bolsters their defense; the Trump administration counters that the cases differ and should be distinguished. A three-judge panel is hearing the challenge this week, and its ruling could determine whether the dispute reaches the Supreme Court before the 2026 midterms.
Supreme Court’s Texas Ruling Puts California Map Under Scrutiny — Will Justices Rule the Same?
When the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority upheld Texas’s Republican-drawn congressional map in early December, Justice Samuel Alito — another Republican appointee — observed that "the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple." At a court that has effectively tolerated partisan gerrymandering, that remark has been read less as a rebuke than as a sign that such maps may pass legal muster.
Why This Matters
Alito’s passing reference to California has taken on new significance as a three-judge federal panel hears a Republican challenge to California’s congressional map this week. The lawsuit, filed last month and predating the Supreme Court’s Dec. 4 decision in the Texas case, accuses California of creating an illegal racial gerrymander rather than a map motivated only by partisan politics.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night gathering at the California Democratic Party headquarters on Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento. California voters approved Proposition 50, a measure that will replace the state’s current congressional district map with new, legislature-drawn lines from 2026 through 2030.(Getty Images)
Positions At The Hearing
Lawyers for Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom say the Texas ruling — and especially Alito’s concurring remarks — strengthens their defense and could be dispositive. They have asked the panel to consider the Supreme Court’s action as supportive precedent for upholding California’s plan. The Trump administration, which has intervened against the state, counters that the two cases differ in important factual and legal respects and argues the panel should distinguish California from Texas rather than treat them identically.
Alito: "the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple."
What To Watch Next
The three-judge panel is scheduled to conclude oral arguments Wednesday, and a ruling could come soon. Any decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may again face the question of whether to allow maps shaped by partisan objectives — and whether to treat California the same way it treated Texas. The outcome could affect redistricting disputes nationwide and potentially influence control of the House ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Context: The dispute highlights an evolving legal landscape in which the Supreme Court’s recent rulings shape how lower courts evaluate allegations that maps are illegal racial gerrymanders versus constitutionally permissible partisan maps.
