In a decision on Wednesday, a three-judge panel (consisting of U.S. District Court Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth Lee) voted 2-1 against blocking California's controversial Proposition 50 gerrymandering map:
🚨 In a 2-1 vote, a panel of judges has DECLINED to block California's Proposition 50 congressional map under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 14, 2026
Judge Lee of the 9th Circuit dissents. Appeals here go directly to the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/WBBZ3GvvoL
The majority ruled that this is a novel question of law, and plaintiffs and the Justice Department (DOJ) bore the burden of proving there was improper racial intent when voters passed the proposition:
The majority holds that plaintiffs and the DOJ needed to prove that the VOTERS acted with improper racial intent when enacting Prop 50, not the map-drawer or the Legislature.
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 14, 2026
The majority concedes that this is a novel question of law. pic.twitter.com/yjgtwRx5Yv
Here is some of the majority opinion, via a thread from SCOTUS Wire:
The majority holds that all of the evidence presented as to Paul Mitchell's intent when drawing the map, or the Legislature's intent when proposing Prop 50, is only relevant insofar as it influenced the voters in their decision at the polls.
The majority also rejects expert analysis of the plaintiffs and alternative maps.
Meanwhile, the sole dissenting judge, Judge Lee, criticized Mitchell, the consultant who drew the map, for allegedly delaying his testimony as to his intent regarding it:
Judge Lee opens his dissent by chiding Mitchell for his tactics to delay testifying as to his intentions.
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 14, 2026
He then outlines Mitchell's public statements, and the shape of District 13, that "carry all the hallmarks of a racial gerrymander."
More discussion of Mitchell's "borderline bad faith" tactics from Judge Lee. pic.twitter.com/vy2zxohmER
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 14, 2026
Lee wrote that "The direct statements of Mitchell that show his intent in increasing Latino voting power, statements of legislators, and the expert analysis of Dr. Trende that show that race predominated in at least the drawing of District 13."
Lee also rejected the argument that the majority made about voters' intent in approving the new map:
Lee doesn't accept the voter-intent framework of the majority because voters did not draw district lines and racial gerrymandering inquiries proceed on district-by-district formulation, not mapwide intent. Their intent necessarily can't be the relevant factor.
Judge Lee argues that Purcell should not foreclose relief, especially outlining the delay tactics by California that essentially constitute a waiver of the Purcell argument.
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 14, 2026
Judge Lee also said this case is not the same as the one in Texas:
He argues that this case is substantially different from the Texas case in which the Supreme Court issued a stay. pic.twitter.com/BHjcoYDKFb
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 14, 2026
Lastly, he shared what he believes is the proper remedy, instead of allowing the gerrymandering Prop. 50 map:
Finally, Judge Lee argues that the proper remedy is to restore California's 2021 commission-drawn map. pic.twitter.com/TwT55wKubw
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) January 14, 2026
Any appeal of the panel's decision here, as SCOTUS Wire notes, would assure a visit to the U.S. Supreme Court for the case.
You can read the full decision/dissent below:
Gov.uscourts.cacd.994285.216.0 January 14 by lowertheboom00
This is a developing story. RedState will provide updates as more information becomes available.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member