You’ve probably seen variants of this floating around:
On February 4, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an order in Tangipa v. Newsom, Docket No. 25A839, that says simply:
The application for writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.
A writ of injunction is a request by the appellant to a higher Court to order a lower Court to issue an injunction in a pending case. And the petition for that injunction was denied.
The case itself hasn’t been dismissed, nor is this any kind of final order or disposition. The case is still pending in the lower Courts. The only thing the appellants sought was an order to postpone use of the new maps still after the case is disposed, provided it’s disposed in California’s favor. And the Supreme Court denied that request. And since the appellants have no other recourse, they can’t seek any kind of injunction against use of the new maps unless something new enters the picture, like new maps.
Thankfully there are some media outlets who are properly reporting the current state of the case over acting like the case is now done. In an article for UPI, Mike Heuer says this:
Although the writ of injunction was denied, the ruling does not end legal challenges to the new map for California congressional districts that was approved by 64% of California voters on Nov. 4.
It does, however, increase the likelihood that the newly drawn districts will stay active during the Nov. 3 midterm election.
This is the correct interpretation of the Court’s action on Wednesday. Again the case is still pending, and will likely still be fully pending beyond November.
You must be logged in to post a comment.