In Sacramento, California, a federal panel consisting of three judges has greenlit the use of a newly voter-endorsed U.S. House map, which aims to enhance Democratic prospects in the 2026 midterm elections.

By a 2-1 decision, the panel in Los Angeles rejected motions from state Republicans and the U.S. Justice Department to prevent the map’s implementation in upcoming elections. The opposition argued that California’s map unfairly leveraged racial considerations to benefit Hispanic voters, thus breaching constitutional guidelines.

Voters overwhelmingly passed this map, crafted to potentially enable Democrats to capture up to five additional House seats, via Proposition 50 in November. The initiative, spearheaded by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has presidential ambitions for 2028, is designed to counteract a similar maneuver in Texas, backed by President Donald Trump to secure five Republican seats. Presently, Republicans occupy nine out of California’s 52 congressional seats.

The court’s decision marks a strategic win for Democrats in the ongoing mid-decade redistricting skirmish, which could heavily influence the partisan control of the U.S. House in 2026. This seesaw conflict between the largest U.S. states comes as Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio have also revised district lines to potentially favor partisan goals. Notably, the Justice Department’s legal challenges have only been directed at California.

Governor Newsom remarked, “Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” celebrating the ruling.

State Republicans are anticipated to challenge this decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. At this time, a response from their spokesperson is pending.

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 court agreed, 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.

The ruling also comes after the Supreme Court ruled last 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.