Skip to main content

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

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California can use a new voter-approved U.S. House map that is designed to boost Democrats in the 2026 midterms, a federal three-judge panel ruled Wednesday.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel in Los Angeles denied requests from state Republicans and the U.S. Justice Department to block the map from being used in future elections. The complaint accused California of violating the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Hispanic voters when drawing the new district lines.

The map, aimed at giving Democrats a shot at flipping as many as five House seats next year, was decisively approved by voters through Proposition 50 in November. The effort was pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is eying a 2028 presidential run, to counter a similar effort in Texas backed by President Donald Trump to help Republicans win five House seats. Republicans currently hold nine of California’s 52 congressional seats.

The ruling is a victory for Democrats in the state-by-state mid-decade redistricting battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026. Following the tit-for-tat showdown between the nation’s two most populous states, several Republican-led states including Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have adopted new district lines that could provide a partisan advantage. Republican-run Utah was ordered by a judge to adopt a map that creates a Democratic-leaning district. The Justice Department has only sued California.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement.

Republicans vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The well reasoned dissenting opinion better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court,” Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said in a statement.

California Democrats said that the new map was legal because it was drawn for partisan advantage. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering is a political question and not one for the federal courts to decide. The California panel of judges affirmed the state’s characterization, saying there was not strong evidence to support the maps were drawn based on race.

“After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that it was exactly as one would think: it was partisan,” the judges wrote.

In dissent, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Lee, appointed by Trump, said that at least one district was drawn using race as a factor “to curry favor with Latino groups and voters.”

The ruling also comes after the Supreme Court ruled in December to allow Texas to use its new map for the 2026 election because it was drawn with partisan goals. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion that the California map was also approved for political advantage, signaling it may also stand.

New U.S. House maps are drawn across the country after the census every 10 years. Some states like California rely on an independent commission to draw maps while others like Texas let politicians draw them. The effort to create new maps in the middle of the decade is highly unusual.

House Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, which could thwart Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans hold a narrow margin of control in the House with 218 seats to Democrats’ 213.

Massachusetts court hears arguments in lawsuit alleging Meta designed apps to be addictive to kids

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts' highest court heard oral arguments Friday in the state's lawsuit arguing that Meta designed features on Facebook and Instagram to make them addictive to young users. The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by Attorney General Andrea Campbell, alleges that Meta did this to make a profit and that its actions affected hundreds of thousands of teenagers in Massachusetts who use the social media platforms. “We are making claims based only on the tools that Meta has developed because its own research shows they encourage addiction to the platform in a variety of ways,” said State Solicitor David Kravitz, adding that the state's claim has nothing to do the company's algorithms or failure to moderate content. Meta said Friday that it strongly disagrees with the allegations and is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.” Its attorney, Mark Mosier, argued in court that the lawsuit “would impose liabilities for performing traditional publishing functions” and that its actions are protected by the First Amendment.
Read Next Story