California GOP appeals their redistricting loss to Supreme Court in last-ditch bid to block voter-approved map

Republican assembly member David Tangipa, center, speaks to reporters during a press conference announcing a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 50, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)

Republicans are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and block California’s voter-approved congressional map after a federal court firmly rejected their challenge.

Late Thursday, GOP plaintiffs formally appealed a federal court ruling that refused to halt California’s voter-approved response to Texas’ mid-decade gerrymander. At the same time, they asked the same lower court that just ruled against them to issue an emergency injunction anyway, a request unlikely to be granted.

The appeal follows a sweeping defeat for Republicans Wednesday, when a three-judge panel concluded that the state’s new map was driven by partisanship, not race, and therefore could not be blocked under federal law.

That decision cleared the way for California to use the new districts in 2026, countering the GOP’s aggressive gerrymander in Texas that was designed to net Republicans five additional House seats.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in response to Wednesday’s court ruling. “California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 — to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas — and that is exactly what this court concluded.”

Because the case was decided by a three-judge panel and involved an injunction, federal law allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. That does not mean the justices have to agree to hear the case, let alone block California’s map. It simply puts the appeal on the Court’s doorstep.

Republicans are seeking immediate relief — an order stopping California from using the new map while the appeal is pending. But courts are often deeply reluctant to change election rules this close to an election, a principle known as the Purcell doctrine. 

In plain terms, courts try to avoid last-minute interventions that could confuse voters, candidates and election officials. With candidate filing deadlines just weeks away, the timing alone makes emergency relief unlikely.

And there is another, even bigger problem for the GOP. 

The same Supreme Court they are now asking for help has already framed California’s map in a way that undercuts the core of their lawsuit.

In December, when the Court allowed Texas to use its own mid-decade gerrymander, the majority explicitly described California’s response as partisan, not racial.

“Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done,” the Court wrote. “The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

Under Supreme Court precedent, partisan gerrymandering — drawing maps to help one political party — is not something federal courts can police. Racial gerrymandering is. The California GOP has argued that race, not politics, drove the new districts. 

Both the three-judge panel and the Supreme Court’s own words point in the opposite direction.

“No one on either side of that debate characterized the map as a racial gerrymander,” the court wrote, adding that Republicans repeatedly described it as partisan. The judges emphasized that voters approved the map for openly political reasons — to counter Texas — and that voter intent mattered.

Since the Supreme Court greenlit partisan gerrymandering in 2019, the panel concluded, Republicans “abandoned the argument they made to the voters” and repackaged their objections as racial discrimination.

The Justice Department, who intervened to support the GOP in the case, signaled it may continue backing the challenge but has not yet filed its own appeal. After the lower court ruling, Attorney General Pamela Bondi publicly criticized the decision.

“We disagree with yesterday’s 2-1 ruling on California’s redistricting map,” Bondi posted on social media. “California impermissibly drew its new congressional map based on race. That’s unconstitutional. We are reviewing all legal options.”

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take up the case. But the GOP faces long odds, as voters have spoken, the lower court has ruled and even the Supreme Court has described California’s move as partisan “pure and simple.”