DOJ Slams Newsom Over Race Map

Gavin Newsom is trying to sell himself as a defender of constitutional rights—even as the Justice Department sues his administration over what it calls a race-based congressional map.

Story Snapshot

The U.S. Justice Department filed suit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and California over a congressional redistricting plan it describes as an illegal racial gerrymander.
California Democrats are also advancing a “No Kings” proposal to expand the ability to sue federal officers, including ICE agents, for alleged rights violations.
Newsom’s office highlighted an unusual point of agreement with the NRA on gun-carry rhetoric, underscoring how selective “rights” messaging can be in partisan fights.
The parallel tracks—federal voting-rights enforcement and state-level resistance laws—are intensifying a Trump-era federal-state clash with real consequences for elections and immigration enforcement.

DOJ lawsuit targets California’s redistricting plan

The Justice Department announced a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and the State of California challenging what it calls a “race-based redistricting plan.” Federal officials argue the state’s map violates constitutional and statutory protections by sorting voters by race, and they are seeking to block the plan’s use. The case lands in the middle of a high-stakes election cycle, where district lines can shape who controls Congress and how communities are represented.

California’s redistricting fight did not appear out of nowhere. Reporting described how voters approved a Newsom-backed change allowing the legislature to draw congressional maps for 2026 through 2030, a move framed as a counter to other states’ partisan mapping battles. The DOJ suit now puts that effort under federal scrutiny, with the central legal question focused on whether California’s approach crossed the line into unlawful racial gerrymandering rather than permissible compliance with voting-rights rules.

“No Kings” proposal expands lawsuits against federal officers

While the redistricting case heads toward the courts, California Democrats are moving a separate front: legislation that would allow civil lawsuits against federal officers, including ICE agents, for alleged constitutional violations. The proposal advanced in the state Senate and is tied to broader concerns about accountability after high-profile incidents involving federal law enforcement. Supporters say it closes a remedy gap; opponents warn it could be used to obstruct lawful federal operations.

The practical impact could be significant in immigration enforcement, where federal officers often operate amid protests, rapid-response deployments, and complex jurisdictional boundaries. If California creates a new state-level pathway to sue federal agents, it could increase litigation risk and compliance burdens for federal immigration operations. That kind of state-federal collision is precisely where constitutional tensions flare: the federal government executes national law, while a state attempts to impose new liabilities that may deter enforcement actions.

Newsom highlights NRA agreement on gun-carry messaging

Newsom’s office also promoted a rare headline: the National Rifle Association agreeing with him on a specific point about gun policy, with the governor casting it as proof that the Trump-era federal message on gun carriers is overbroad. The public statement shows how political leaders can cherry-pick constitutional language for strategic moments. Agreement on rhetoric is not the same as agreement on policy, and the available record here does not document a broader alignment on Second Amendment issues.

How the “rights” framing collides with equal-protection claims

The core political friction is that Newsom’s team is talking about rights while simultaneously facing a federal lawsuit that argues California’s map infringes equal protection by using race as a central organizing principle. Courts will decide whether the DOJ’s allegations are proven, but the contrast is already shaping public perception. Conservatives typically view equal treatment under the law—without racial sorting—as foundational, especially in election administration where rules must be neutral and transparent.

California’s broader posture toward the Trump administration adds context. Newsom previously called a special session to “protect California values,” including policies touching immigration and other hot-button issues. CalMatters reported that newer state immigration laws have raised legal questions and could trigger further clashes over federal supremacy. The through line is consistent: Sacramento frames its actions as defense, while Washington evaluates whether those actions conflict with constitutional limits and federal authority.

Shameless Gavin Newsom Pretends He's a Champion of Our Constitutional Rights
https://t.co/qcTV7q080A

— Townhall Updates (@TownhallUpdates) January 28, 2026

For voters who care about constitutional boundaries, the next developments will come from court filings and legislative votes—not press releases. The DOJ redistricting suit will test how far California can go in using race in mapmaking, and the “No Kings” bill will test how aggressively the state can impose new legal exposure on federal officers. The available reporting leaves some unknowns, including final bill language and court timelines, but the central conflict is clear: power, elections, and enforcement are colliding again.