Two lawsuits against California Gov. Gavin Newsom over the Golden State’s mid-decade congressional redistricting are being consolidated in federal court.
The consolidation of the cases was announced by the Alexandria, Va.-based law firm that represented the plaintiffs in one case, Noyes vs. Newsom. That case lists Mitch Noyes, Holden Lomeli and Anthony McBroom as plaintiffs. All three are California residents who live in newly drawn districts under the Proposition 50 map, which California voters approved overwhelmingly in November 2025.
“It’s about efficiency,” J. Christian Adams, the president and general counsel at Public Interest Legal Foundation, said about consolidating the suits.
“You don’t want to have two separate train tracks,” Adams told The Center Square on Tuesday. “We thought they should have been consolidated from the beginning, but that didn’t happen, so better late than never, I suppose.”
Adams explained that in Tangipa vs. Newsom, the plaintiff – Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno – was seeking a preliminary injunction to suspend use of the maps while the constitutionality of the maps was decided in court. According to the complaint in Noyes vs. Newsom, the newly drawn districts that Noyes, Lomeli and McBroom all live in were drawn with racial intent.
Noyes vs. Newsom brings up different legal issues than the Tangipa case, which was heard in December in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Adams told The Center Square.
“The Noyes case is different because it deals with the 15th Amendment, and not the 14th,” Adams said. “The hurdle for the 15th Amendment is much lower to get over than the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is a harder case.”
The 14th Amendment ensures equal protection under the law. The 15th prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race or color.
The case will continue to be heard in U.S. District Court Central District of California in Los Angeles, Adams said. The defendants in the case, Newsom and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, will answer the new consolidated complaint. There is currently no date set for the case.
Tangipa vs. Newsom, which was heard in the federal district courthouse in downtown Los Angeles in December 2025, spanned three days and eventually resulted in the court deciding to uphold the maps. The crux of the plaintiff’s argument was that racial gerrymandering was a factor in how the maps were drawn.
Tangipa predicted that the case was going to go before the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the highest court in the country decided to not hear the case in February.
“This is just a denial of the emergency injunction, and I really just thank the court for providing clarity,” Tangipa, who brought the lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice, previously told The Center Square.
Tangipa did not respond to The Center Square before press time on Tuesday.
Tangipa, who was the only Republican lawmaker to sue Newsom and Weber over Prop. 50, filed his lawsuit after the special election passed in November with 64.7% of California voters approving the measure. Newsom pushed for the mid-decade redistricting effort after Texas redrew its congressional maps last year to allow Lone Star State Republicans to pick up five new seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the midterm elections later this year. California’s redistricting election allowed the Golden State to pick up five new Democratic seats in the House.
California legislators who sit on elections-related committees did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment. Newsom’s office also did not respond before press time on Tuesday.
