California Congressional Redistricting Challenge (Noyes)

An anti-voting lawsuit challenging the implementation of California’s new congressional map passed under Proposition 50.

Background

California voters, through conservative legal group Public Interest Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit against California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) in federal court challenging the enactment of Proposition 50 and the state’s new congressional map. Plaintiffs assert the new map was drawn “with racial goals and using racial means” to favor Hispanic voters. Plaintiffs argue Proposition 50 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fifteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit seeks to block the new map.

Why It Matters

On Nov. 4, California voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of Proposition 50 to implement a new congressional map that adds five more seats for Democrats. The new map is a response to Texas’ gerrymander demanded by President Donald Trump to help Republicans retain control of the House in 2026. The California Supreme Court and federal courts have already rejected five lawsuits challenging the state’s redistricting plan.

Latest Updates

• Mar. 17, 2026: The court ordered this case to be consolidated with Tangipa v. Newsom, and has administratively closed this case. All future updates can be found here.
• Feb. 27, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their response to the Feb. 17 order stating they oppose consolidation with Tangipa v. Newsom. Defendants do not oppose consolidation. Plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint.
• Feb. 17, 2026: The court ordered parties to show cause as to why, or why not, this lawsuit should not be consolidated with Tangipa v. Newsom going forward. All pending motions are paused.
• Feb. 13, 2026: The DCCC filed their reply in support of their motion to intervene as defendants.
• Feb. 6, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the DCCC’s motion to intervene as defendants.
• Jan. 27, 2026: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) filed a motion to intervene as defendants.
• Jan. 10, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants’ motion to pause proceedings.
• Jan. 9, 2026: Defendants filed a motion to pause proceedings until the motion for preliminary injunction is resolved in Tangipa.
• Jan. 7, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block the new map.
• Dec. 24, 2025: Defendants asked the court to assign the case to the judge who presides over Tangipa, and to convene the same three-judge court overseeing that case.
• Dec. 22, 2025: Plaintiffs requested a three-judge court.
• Dec. 2, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their complaint.