Supreme Court Issues Unexplained Emergency Order On February 4 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned emergency order that cleared the way for California’s newly drawn congressional map to be used in the 2026 midterm elections, providing no rationale and rejecting last‑minute challenges from California Republicans and the Trump administration [1][2][3][4]. The order follows a lower‑court 2‑1 decision that found the map was not racially gerrymandered [4].

Map Approved by Voters and Designed to Add Democratic Seats California voters adopted the map in a November 2025 referendum (Proposition 50) with roughly 64 % support, mandating new districts for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections [3]. The plan creates up to five new districts that favor Democrats, potentially turning five Republican‑held seats Democratic and shifting the state’s House delegation to 43 Democrats, eight Republicans and one vacancy out of 52 seats [2][4]. Governor Gavin Newsom promoted the referendum as retaliation against a Republican‑led Texas map and accused former President Trump of sparking the “redistricting war” [1][2].

Political Reactions Highlight Partisan Clash Newsom used X to claim Trump “lost” the redistricting battle and will lose again in November, framing the California map as a counter‑measure [1][2]. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the move a “brazen” power grab, while former California GOP executive director Jon Fleishman warned the new lines will further shrink the Republican delegation [3][4]. Justice Alito, in a December filing, noted both California and Texas are redrawing maps for partisan advantage, underscoring the Court’s reluctance to intervene on purely political grounds [4].

Election Timeline Moves Forward After Court Ruling The Supreme Court’s order clears the path for candidate filing, which opens on February 9 2026, allowing campaigns to launch under the new district boundaries [3][4]. The decision removes the legal obstacle just weeks before the primary filing deadline, setting the stage for the 2026 congressional races to be contested on the newly drawn lines [1]. No dissenting opinions were filed, reflecting the Court’s typical handling of emergency motions [4].