Supreme Court Sends Washington Redistricting Cases Back to Ninth Circuit
Event and publication date: October 5, 2026 | Status: Cases remanded; merits remain pending.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitions in Garcia v. Hobbs and Trevino v. Hobbs, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgments, and returned both cases for reconsideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais.
What the order means: This is a grant-vacate-remand order. It directs the appeals court to reconsider its decisions under a newer precedent. It does not itself declare either Washington map constitutional or unconstitutional, or order an immediate replacement map.
The disputes concern Legislative District 15 in Washington’s Yakima Valley. Latino voters challenged the original district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, alleging dilution of their voting strength. Separate challengers argued that the original or court-drawn replacement map improperly classified voters by race. A federal district court found a Voting Rights Act violation and adopted a remedial map; related challenges reached the Ninth Circuit.
Why it matters: In its April 29, 2026 Callais decision, the Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances in which Section 2 requires race-conscious redistricting. The Ninth Circuit must now apply that decision to these Washington cases. The outcome remains pending.
Parties’ positions: The map challengers sought Supreme Court review. The Latino-voter plaintiffs opposed the petition and defended the vote-dilution remedy. Washington’s June 2 filing requested reconsideration in light of Callais; Secretary of State Steve Hobbs took no position on the merits of the Section 2 claim. No same-day public response was located when this report was prepared.
Primary sources: Supreme Court order list, October 5, 2026 · Garcia docket and filings · Trevino docket and filings · Louisiana v. Callais opinion.