Tangipa v. Newsom

Tangipa v. Newsom is a racial gerrymandering challenge to California's Proposition 50 maps heading toward the Supreme Court after the 9th Circuit upheld them 2-1 in January 2026, with Judge Kenneth Lee dissenting. The case argues that the Democratic-controlled legislature that drew the maps under Proposition 50 packed minority voters into SAFE seats to engineer partisan advantage, violating the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. Every Democratic 2026 redistricting track is now closed, and the California maps — the one Democratic retaliation map that exists on paper — are stuck in litigation that will not resolve before November 2026.

The case has unusual symmetry with the Louisiana v. Callais line: Callais tested racial gerrymandering limits on a Republican-drawn map; Tangipa tests the same limits on a Democratic-drawn one. Legal scholars have noted that the Equal Protection doctrine established in Callais applies identically to both parties' maps. If SCOTUS grants certiorari, it would be taking a case that could constrain Democratic gerrymanders as severely as Republican ones.

Judge Kenneth Lee's 9th Circuit dissent is the roadmap for the SCOTUS petition. Lee argued the majority applied the wrong standard for evaluating racial predominance and that the maps' demographic construction was constitutionally indistinguishable from the Alabama and Louisiana maps that prior courts had struck down. Petitioners' SCOTUS brief is expected to be filed before the end of the 2025-26 term.