发布时间： 2026年2月4日，美国东部时间下午2:24 / 来源： CNN
作者： [约翰·弗里茨]
3小时前
关键词： 最高法院 国会 新闻 唐纳德·特朗普 种族与民族
[Facebook 推文][电子邮件] [链接]
已复制链接！
[图片：一只鸟于1月9日从美国最高法院大楼顶部飞起。Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]
最高法院周三允许加利福尼亚州使用新的国会选区地图，该地图将削弱总统唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）试图保持众议院控制权的努力，这对共和党人来说是一次失败——他们声称其中一个新选区的重新划分是基于种族而非政治考量。
法院未记录异议，也未解释其推理依据。
来自州共和党人的紧急上诉是与特朗普在中期选举后为保住众议院而发起的一场持续的“军备竞赛式”中期重新划分选区相关的最新案件，这类案件已接连提交至最高法院。
广告反馈
加利福尼亚州重新绘制了该地图，将五个共和党人持有的席位纳入竞争，这是对得克萨斯州有利于共和党的党派重新划分选区的回应。
联邦法院，包括最高法院，通常不介入涉及党派操纵选区的案件。但州共和党人辩称，在覆盖旧金山和弗雷斯诺之间部分中央谷地的第13国会选区的重新划分中，种族因素起到了推动作用。这些指控主要基于地图绘制顾问保罗·米切尔（Paul Mitchell）的言论，他公开表示，其意图是“确保拉丁裔选区”在第13国会选区中“得到加强”。
加州共和党人在紧急上诉中向最高法院表示：“该州‘宣称的目的是为民主党在国会争取五个席位，以抵消共和党在得克萨斯州获得的五个席位’。但这些官员还有另一个目的：最大化拉丁裔选民力量，以巩固拉丁裔对民主党的支持。”
该地图最终在全民公决中获得州居民批准，64%的选民支持该计划。
但挑战该地图的共和党人面临看似无法逾越的障碍。就在几周前，最高法院驳回了民权组织及其他团体对得克萨斯州地图提出的极为相似的质疑。12月初，法院支持了得克萨斯州的这一挑战，允许该州地图在今年选举中使用。
最高法院保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托（Samuel Alito）在一份协同意见中写道，“得克萨斯州地图（以及随后加利福尼亚州通过的地图）被采用的‘推动力纯粹是党派优势’，这一点‘无可争议’。”他的意见得到了另外两名保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）和尼尔·戈萨奇（Neil Gorsuch）的支持。
[相关文章：加利福尼亚州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）于11月8日在得克萨斯州休斯顿与民主党议员一起出席集会，就在加利福尼亚州第50号提案通过后几天，该提案旨在反击得克萨斯州共和党人的重新划分选区努力。Brandon Bell/Getty Images/文件]
阅读时间： 4分钟 | 最高法院如何在加利福尼亚州及其他地区推动民主党重新绘制美国众议院选区地图
州共和党官员和州共和党向法院提起诉讼，要求阻止该地图的使用，特朗普政府也参与了这场诉讼。但政府拒绝亲自向最高法院提出紧急上诉，转而提交了一份支持州官员上诉的简报。
加利福尼亚州共和党人曾要求最高法院在2月9日——该州候选人报名期开始时——做出裁决。但州长加文·纽森和其他民主党反对者指出，最高法院长期以来告诫法院不要在选举临近时更改州选举规则。该州初选定于6月2日举行，选举官员告诉法院，他们将于5月开始处理邮寄选票。
各州通常每十年根据新的人口普查重新划分众议院选区。特朗普一直敦促共和党主导的州现在就利用这些地图争取优势，以便在他总统任期的最后两年里，民主党将更难夺取众议院控制权。
根据2019年最高法院的先例，联邦法院不再审查涉及党派操纵选区的指控。然而，法院仍然审查种族操纵选区的指控。由于在选区划分中，种族和政治因素往往紧密交织，多起诉讼要求法官判定有争议的地图是基于种族歧视还是党派优势而绘制的。
在加州的一个三人法官小组以2-1的裁决中，认定重新划分是一场政治行为，并拒绝阻止新地图的使用。
“我们的结论是，这正如人们想象的那样：它是有党派性的，”法院写道，“记录中充斥着大量反映第50号提案党派目标的陈述。”
多数派的两名法官由民主党总统任命。第三名法官，由特朗普任命，持异议。该法官强调了地图绘制者关于确保拉丁裔选区“得到加强”的公开声明。
美国巡回法官肯尼思·李（Kenneth Lee）写道：“我们知道，至少在一个选区的划分中，种族可能起了主导作用，因为‘确凿证据’掌握在保罗·米切尔手中——他是加利福尼亚州立法机构通过的国会选区重新划分地图的绘制者。”
最高法院 国会新闻 唐纳德·特朗普 种族与民族
[Facebook 推文][电子邮件] [链接]
已复制链接！
广告反馈
Supreme Court lets California use new Democrat-friendly congressional map
Published Feb 4, 2026, 2:24 PM ET / Source: CNN
By
[John Fritze]
3 hr ago
Supreme Court Congressional news Donald Trump Race & ethnicity
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link
Link Copied!
A bird lifts off from the top of the US Supreme Court building on January 9.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed California to use a new congressional map that will undermine President Donald Trump’s effort to keep control of the House of Representatives, marking a defeat for Republicans who claimed one of the new districts was redesigned based on race rather than politics.
There were no noted dissents, and the court did not explain its reasoning.
The emergency appeal from state Republicans was the latest to reach the high court tied to an ongoing arms-race-style mid-decade redistricting that Trump initiated to keep the House after the midterm elections.
Ad Feedback
California redrew its map, which puts five GOP-held seats in play, as a response to a partisan redistricting in Texas that benefited Republicans.
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, don’t get involved in cases dealing with partisan gerrymanders. But state Republicans had argued that racial considerations motivated the redrawing of one district that covers portions of the Central Valley between San Francisco and Fresno. Those allegations were based largely on comments by a mapmaking consultant, Paul Mitchell, who said publicly that he intended to “ensure that Latino districts” were “bolstered” in the 13th Congressional District.
The state’s “professed purpose was to pick up five seats in Congress for the Democratic Party to offset the five seats the Republican Party gained in Texas,” California Republicans told the Supreme Court in their emergency appeal. “But those officials harbored another purpose as well: maximizing Latino voting strength to shore up Latino support for the Democratic Party.”
The map was ultimately approved by state residents in a referendum in which 64% of voters backed the plan.
But the Republicans challenging the map faced a seemingly insurmountable hurdle. Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court rejected a strikingly similar argument made by civil rights and other groups challenging Texas’ map. In early December, the court sided with Texas in that challenge, permitting the state’s map to be used in this year’s election.
Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote in a concurrence that it was “indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” His opinion was joined by two other conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
[Related article California Gov. Gavin Newsom arrives at a rally alongside Democratic lawmakers in Houston, Texas, on November 8, just days after the passage of California’s Proposition 50 to counter Texas Republicans’ redistricting efforts. Brandon Bell/Getty Images/File How the Supreme Court emboldened Democrats in California and elsewhere redrawing US House maps 4 min read]
State GOP officials and the state Republican Party sued to block the map’s use and the Trump administration joined that litigation. But the administration declined to bring its own emergency appeal to the Supreme Court and instead filed a brief supporting the state officials’ appeal.
California Republicans had asked the Supreme Court for a decision by February 9 – the start of the state’s candidate filing period. But Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic opponents noted that the justices have long admonished courts not to change state voting rules close to an election. The state’s primary is set for June 2 and election officials told the court they would begin processing mail-in ballots in May.
States generally redraw their House districts once a decade to correspond with a new census. Trump has pushed GOP states to try to eke an advantage out of those maps now so that Democrats will have a harder time capturing control of the House during his final two years in the White House.
Under a 2019 Supreme Court precedent, federal courts no longer review cases alleging partisan gerrymanders. However, courts do still review claims of racial gerrymanders. And because race and politics are often so closely intertwined in mapmaking, several suits have required judges to decide whether disputed maps were drawn based on racial discrimination or partisan advantage.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel in California concluded that the redrawing was a political effort and declined to block the new map’s use.
“We conclude that it was exactly as one would think: it was partisan,” the court wrote. “The record contains a mountain of statements reflecting the partisan goals of Proposition 50.”
The two judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents. A third judge, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. That judge called attention to public statements from the mapmaker about efforts to ensure Latino districts are “bolstered.”
“We know race likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell, the mapmaker who drew the congressional redistricting map adopted by the California state legislature,” wrote US Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee.
Supreme Court Congressional news Donald Trump Race & ethnicity
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link
Link Copied!
Ad Feedback