Case could be filed again with fact sets and arguments structured differently, and in a way in which USSC would be inclined to rule formally, not simply dismiss passively as they did here. It would have to be an urgent filing to get a meaningful ruling in time for 2026 primaries. GOP is opposing the redistricting thing from several different angles in CA, not just one. State law violations may also complicate CA (D)'s redistricting plans, like Commonwealth election rules have complicated (D)'s attempts in VA to re-district
They are not "allowing" anything. If they ruled on the merits of the case they would communicate a finding based in law that allows it. They declined to hear the case as presented. The case can be resubmitted with an alternate theory which may be ruled on favorably.
The USSC declined to take the case as filed. This is not a ruling on the merits of the case.
Correct. Letting run before pulling out the rug.
Case could be filed again with fact sets and arguments structured differently, and in a way in which USSC would be inclined to rule formally, not simply dismiss passively as they did here. It would have to be an urgent filing to get a meaningful ruling in time for 2026 primaries. GOP is opposing the redistricting thing from several different angles in CA, not just one. State law violations may also complicate CA (D)'s redistricting plans, like Commonwealth election rules have complicated (D)'s attempts in VA to re-district
But they are allowing the map to be used for the 2026 midterms, so it's essentially a Democrat win either way.
They are not "allowing" anything. If they ruled on the merits of the case they would communicate a finding based in law that allows it. They declined to hear the case as presented. The case can be resubmitted with an alternate theory which may be ruled on favorably.