The Department of Justice has intervened in a federal lawsuit over California’s new congressional map tied to Proposition 50, alleging the plan amounts to racial gerrymandering and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The DOJ filed a complaint that names Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, challenging the legislature’s authority under the newly adopted Proposition 50. The suit asserts the plan was crafted in a way that prioritizes race and demographic groupings in drawing congressional districts. That action escalates a legal fight over who gets to draw maps and on what constitutional grounds they may do so.
Federal officials contend the map was designed to entrench one-party control by using race as a key factor, a practice the Constitution forbids when it substitutes racial sorting for neutral districting rules. The lawsuit frames the redistricting as a deliberate effort to use racial composition as a proxy for political advantage. If the courts agree, the map could be declared unlawful and blocked from use in future elections.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a forceful statement criticizing the plan and those who backed it. “California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”
Proposition 50 amended the state constitution to let the legislature draw a new congressional map rather than relying strictly on independent commissions, shifting power back to lawmakers. The complaint points to legislative records and public statements to support its claim that Latino demographics and racial considerations predominated in mapmaking. Those allegations form the factual backbone of the government’s contention that the Equal Protection Clause was violated.
“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50,” said Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond.”
The complaint filed in the Central District of California runs roughly 20 pages and sets out the DOJ’s theory that race was deployed to achieve partisan ends. The document argues those choices run afoul of longstanding Supreme Court precedents that forbid race-based districting unless narrowly tailored to comply with voting-rights protections. The filing seeks judicial relief that would prevent the contested map from being applied in upcoming election cycles.
United States attorneys on the case emphasized the urgency of stopping any map drawn principally by racial lines from affecting voters and outcomes. “The race-based gerrymandered maps passed by the California legislature are unlawful and unconstitutional,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California. “The U.S. Department of Justice is moving swiftly to prevent these illegal maps from tainting our upcoming elections. California is free to draw congressional maps, but they may not be drawn based on race.”
The Department of Justice has moved to intervene in Tangipa et al v Newsom, and that motion is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The intervention seeks to make the federal government a party so it can press constitutional claims directly and seek court orders limiting the map’s use. Those procedural steps are designed to speed judicial review ahead of the next round of federal elections.
Administrative details in the filing note that Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon has been recused from this matter and that Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jesus A. Osete will represent the Department on these claims. The DOJ’s approach keeps its civil rights apparatus directly involved while adhering to internal assignment rules. That staffing choice ensures the government’s constitutional challenge will be led by senior Civil Rights Division officials.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the redistricting map unlawful and to enjoin its use going forward, putting the legality of Prop 50’s implementation squarely before a federal judge. If the court grants the relief sought, California could be required to redraw maps under constraints that avoid racial predominance. The litigation raises fundamental questions about how states may consider race in political districting without running afoul of equal protection principles.
