Last Updated November 2025
November 13, 2025: Tangipa, et al. v. Newsom, et al
On November 13, the U.S. DOJ motioned to intervene in Tangipa, et al. v. Newsom, et al., a case against Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber for the State of California’s newly adopted redistricting plan enacted with the passage of Proposition 50.
Proposition 50 amends the California Constitution, allowing the legislature to draw a new congressional-district map. The lawsuit alleges that the plan mandates racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The case is ongoing.
November 3, 2025: State of California v. City of Huntington Beach
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that Measure A, a ballot measure passed by voters in Huntington Beach which required voterID in city elections, is invalid.
Voters in the City had passed the measure in 2023, but the state contended that voterID rules in local elections must align with the uniform system established under California law. The court concluded that Huntington Beach does not have the authority to impose its own separate voterID requirement because California’s election code preempts local variations in this area.
October 15, 2025: Louisiana v. Callais
This case arises from the redrawing of Louisiana’s congressional map after the 2020 census. Plaintiffs challenged the state’s map under Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) Section 2 for diluting Black voters’ electoral power. After the district court found a likely VRA violation and the legislature adopted a second majorityBlack district in 2024, a different group of white voters challenged that remedial map in the Western District of Louisiana, arguing it constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24, 2025, and the Court later ordered reargument for October 15, 2025, after posing a specific question: “Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majorityminority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the United States?”
As of now, no decision has been issued and the case remains pending.
September 30, 2025: Freedom Path, Inc. v. IRS
Freedom Path, a nonprofit organization, applied for taxexempt status under § 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS denied the application, concluding the organization was not operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” and applied its longstanding factsandcircumstances test to assess political campaign intervention.
Freedom Path challenged the denial, contending that the IRS regulation and Revenue Ruling 200406 used in the denial process were unconstitutionally vague when applied to its situation, especially because the organization’s activities involve core political speech protected by the First Amendment
The court found that the IRS regulation and the Revenue Ruling applied to Freedom Path were unconstitutionally vague as applied. The court granted Freedom Path’s motion in part (on the vagueness issue) and denied the IRS’s crossmotion for summary judgment. However, the court stopped short of granting the § 501(c)(4) exemption outright, because neither side provided a workable alternative standard for determining eligibility under a constitutionally adequate test.
August 29, 2025: Kohls v. Bonta
A federal court struck down California’s Assembly Bill 2839, which prohibited “materially deceptive” audio or visual media portraying electoral or voting officials or equipment in a misleading way. The court held that the law was content‑, viewpoint‑, and speaker‑based and therefore triggered strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Although the State’s interest in election integrity was acknowledged, the statute was not narrowly tailored: it covered constitutionally protected speech (including satire or deepfakes that may not cause tangible harm) and allowed almost anyone to bring a private lawsuit, creating the risk of chilling protected speech. However, The decision suggests a possible constitutional path forward for laws that more narrowly target false statements about when, where, or how people vote, rather than broadly regulating all “deceptive election‐related content.”