Attorney General Pam Bondi fired a warning shot Thursday after a federal three-judge panel ruled, by a 2–1 margin, that California may use its newly minted congressional map — a voter-approved redraw designed to juice Democrats’ prospects in the 2026 midterms. Bondi made clear the fight is far from over, writing on X that California “impermissibly drew its new congressional map based on race,” calling the move unconstitutional and pledging that the Justice Department is reviewing “all legal options.” We disagree with yesterday’s 2-1 ruling on California’s redistricting map. California impermissibly drew its new congressional map based on race. That’s unconstitutional. We are reviewing all legal options. — Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) January 15, 2026 The ruling rejected challenges from state Republicans and the DOJ, both of which argued that the map violated the Constitution by using race — particularly to favor Hispanic voters — as a driving factor in redrawing district lines. The panel instead accepted California Democrats’ insistence that the map was drawn for nakedly partisan purposes, a distinction that has become legally decisive since the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering presents a “political question” beyond the reach of federal courts. Proposition 50, pushed aggressively by California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and approved decisively by voters in November, could hand Democrats as many as five additional House seats. Newsom, widely viewed as eyeing a 2028 presidential run, framed the effort as retaliation for a Texas mid-decade redistricting plan backed by President Donald Trump. Republicans currently hold just nine of California’s 52 House seats, making the Golden State a tempting battlefield in the escalating national map war. Democrats celebrated the ruling as a win for voters, with Newsom dismissing the lawsuit as a “weak attempt to silence” them. Republicans were less sanguine. California GOP chair Corrin Rankin vowed an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the dissenting opinion — authored by Trump-appointed Judge Kenneth Lee — more accurately reflected the law and the facts. Lee warned that at least one district was drawn using race “to curry favor with Latino groups and voters,” undercutting the majority’s claim that the map was purely partisan. The decision lands amid an increasingly brazen, state-by-state arms race over redistricting. Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio have moved to redraw maps mid-decade, while a judge forced Republican-run Utah to adopt a Democratic-leaning district. Notably, the Justice Department has sued only California. The stakes are unmistakable. House Democrats need just a handful of seats to flip control of the chamber, potentially grinding Trump’s agenda to a halt and opening the floodgates to congressional investigations. With Republicans holding a razor-thin majority, California’s maps may prove decisive — or become the next front in a Supreme Court showdown over whether “partisan” gerrymandering is simply racial gerrymandering by another name.