JUST IN - U.S. Supreme Court will not take up challenge to Governor Newsom's redistricting efforts in California — Politico
https://x.com/gettingtrumpnow/status/2019133924635533665
### Background on the Case The case, Tangipa v. Newsom, stems from a challenge to California's new congressional redistricting map, which was enacted through Proposition 50—a ballot measure approved by California voters in a special election on November 4, 2025, with about 64% support. Prop 50 authorized the state legislature to draw a new map for congressional districts, overriding the previous map created by California's independent redistricting commission in 2021. Proponents, including Governor Gavin Newsom, argued that the new map was necessary to counter aggressive partisan gerrymandering by Republicans in states like Texas, aiming to boost Democratic representation in the U.S. House by an estimated five seats. Critics, including the plaintiffs (a group of California Republican voters led by David Tangipa, supported by groups like the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the Trump administration), claimed the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the 14th and 15th Amendments by intentionally concentrating Hispanic and Black voters into certain districts to achieve partisan gains. ### Procedural History - Initial Filing and District Court Ruling: The lawsuit was filed on November 5, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:25-cv-10616), before a three-judge panel. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block the new map and revert to the 2021 map. On January 14, 2026, the district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that while the map was drawn for partisan purposes (which the Supreme Court has deemed permissible), it was not primarily motivated by race. The court also denied an injunction pending appeal on January 16, 2026. - Appeal to the Supreme Court: Because this is a redistricting case heard by a three-judge district court, any appeal goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 20, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an emergency application (No. 25A839) for a writ of injunction pending appeal, asking the Supreme Court to halt the use of the new map while the full appeal is considered. The application was initially submitted to Justice Elena Kagan (the circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California). Responses were filed by the state defendants, the U.S. government (as intervenor), and other parties like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The state argued that the map was a legitimate partisan response to redistricting in Republican-led states and that treating California differently would be inconsistent. - Supreme Court's Decision: On February 4, 2026, Justice Kagan referred the application to the full Court, which denied it in a brief, one-sentence order (part of Order List 607 U.S.). There were no noted dissents or explanations provided, which is common for shadow docket rulings like this. ### Current Status As of now (February 4, 2026), the denial of the injunction means California can proceed with using the new Proposition 50 map for the 2026 midterm elections. This is a significant win for Democrats and the Newsom administration, as it avoids disrupting election preparations ahead of key deadlines (e.g., candidate filing periods). However, the underlying appeal on the merits of the case could still be heard by the Supreme Court later—either through a jurisdictional statement or if the Court decides to grant certiorari (review). If the Court takes up the full case, it could potentially reverse the district court's ruling, but for the immediate future, the map remains in effect. This ruling aligns with the Court's recent handling of similar cases, such as rejecting a Democratic challenge to Texas's redistricting in December 2025, emphasizing that partisan gerrymandering is generally non-justiciable unless it crosses into racial discrimination. The X post from http://Disclose.tv somewhat mischaracterizes the order by saying the Court "will not take up" the challenge—it's specifically denying emergency relief, not necessarily refusing to hear the merits.
🚨 BREAKING: Abigail Spanberger just ended the Virginia State Police's 287(g) agreement with ICE– which allowed state law enforcement and the Department of Corrections to assist in arresting criminal illegal aliens.
https://x.com/greg_price11/status/2019115733687447769
jury of your peers……kek
Outrage as ex-UCLA doctor imprisoned for sexually abusing patients has conviction overturned because juror barely spoke English
https://x.com/californiapost/status/2018722602106192191
https://nypost.com/2026/02/03/us-news/former-ucla-doctors-sex-abuse-conviction-overturned/
300+ victims and 4 years worth of trial bullshit….what a fuking joke
Eddie Bauer is reportedly preparing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and will close all its stores, per FOX
https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/2019110956513862122
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/2019138183410409853
wonder why kek
hahahahahahha
BREAKING: Nike is under federal probe over its anti-White hiring practices
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/2019149006744490427
damn…they errywhere
In 2012, then-President Barack Obama was asked to show his ID to vote.
He gladly complied.
This is what Democrats today are shamefully comparing to Jim Crow laws.
https://x.com/Lancegooden/status/2019126883192049803
this reminds of someone…..
🇺🇸🇬🇧 EPSTEIN CASE MADE STARMER SHAKE!
Starmer had to hide his hands and stop them shaking while talking about Peter Mandelson!
Mandelson was one of the key figures in Labour and Epstein’s closest buddy, who gave Epstein government secrets away for money.
https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/2019128114773901653