The battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives has taken a dramatic turn, as the Justice Department filed suit on November 13, 2025, to block California’s newly approved congressional map. The legal action, announced just days after California voters overwhelmingly backed Proposition 50—a ballot measure redrawing the state’s district lines—pits the Biden-era Justice Department and Republican leaders against Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom in a high-stakes clash that could shape the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.
At the heart of the controversy is Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that allows California’s Democratic-controlled legislature to replace the district boundaries drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission. The new map is designed to give Democrats a fighting chance in five congressional seats currently held by Republicans. According to BBC News, the measure was widely seen as a direct response to Republican-led redistricting efforts in Texas, which were championed by former President Donald Trump and aimed at bolstering the GOP’s House majority.
The Justice Department’s complaint, filed in a California federal court, accuses state officials—including Governor Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber—of engaging in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Specifically, the federal prosecutors allege that California’s new map was drawn to favor Hispanic voters, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50—the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit states, as reported by the Associated Press.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who leads the Justice Department’s charge, did not mince words in her criticism of the California plan. “California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Bondi said in an emailed statement published by AP and BBC News. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.” She further accused Newsom of focusing on political gain rather than the welfare of Californians, stating, “Newsom should be concerned about keeping Californians safe and shutting down Antifa violence, not rigging his state for political gain.”
Governor Newsom’s camp has fired back with equal vigor. Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for the governor, dismissed the lawsuit’s challengers, declaring, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.” Newsom himself became the public face of Proposition 50, arguing that Democrats needed to “fight fire with fire” after Texas Republicans redrew their own districts to gain five additional House seats. As CNN reported, Newsom launched a campaign in August to suspend California’s independent maps, urging voters to approve the new plan in order to counter Republican maneuvers elsewhere.
The stakes could hardly be higher. Heading into the 2026 midterms, Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, with 219 seats to Democrats’ 214. Gaining just a handful of seats could flip control of the chamber, imperiling Trump’s agenda and opening the door to new congressional investigations. The redistricting fight in California is mirrored in other states, with Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas all adopting or considering new district lines that could tip the balance of power. According to AP, the national implications of California’s ballot measure were reflected in the tens of millions of dollars that poured into the campaign—including a hefty $5 million donation from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Proposition 50 was not without its high-profile supporters and detractors. Former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger publicly opposed the measure, while former President Barack Obama appeared in ads backing it, calling the plan a “smart” way to counter Republican efforts to shore up their House majority. Democrats significantly outraised and outspent Republicans in the state, and more than 64% of California voters ultimately approved the plan, according to CNN.
The legal challenge was first brought by the California Republican Party and other plaintiffs, who argue that the state violated the 14th and 15th Amendments by using race as a primary factor to favor Hispanic voters. The Department of Justice’s intervention marks a rare instance of federal involvement in a state-level electoral dispute. As Democracy Docket explained, the DOJ’s complaint asserts that California lawmakers used race as a proxy to advance political interests, with the creation of a new majority-Latino district as a top priority. “The end result is a map that manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race,” the complaint states, adding that the professed goal of increasing Democratic representation was subordinated to increasing Hispanic-majority districts.
Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, echoed these concerns, stating in a social media post, “Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond.” Osete also told Governor Newsom that he would “see him in court.” The DOJ has asked the court to declare that Proposition 50 was adopted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has been granted permission to intervene in the case, seeking to defend the redistricting plan. The DCCC is represented by the Elias Law Group, whose chair, Marc Elias, founded the voting rights organization Democracy Docket. The legal battle is being watched closely, as it could set a precedent for how states redraw congressional districts in response to partisan pressures and shifting demographics.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit’s lead plaintiffs are represented by the Dhillon Law Group, a firm founded by Harmeet Dhillon—who now leads the DOJ’s civil rights division. Due to her prior involvement, Dhillon has recused herself from the Proposition 50 case, but has indicated that the Justice Department may pursue other legal avenues as more evidence emerges.
As the case unfolds, both sides are preparing for a protracted fight that could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome may hinge on the high court’s ruling in the pending Louisiana v. Callais case, which could clarify the legal boundaries of race-based redistricting. With Governor Newsom widely seen as a potential 2028 presidential contender, the stakes extend far beyond California’s borders, touching on the future of American democracy itself.
With the 2026 midterms looming and the House majority up for grabs, the nation’s eyes are fixed on California’s courtrooms, where the fate of the new congressional map—and perhaps the balance of power in Washington—will soon be decided.
