When Ideology Trumps Party Politics at the Supreme Court

Six Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices just handed Democrats a potential five-seat gain in the House. The decision seems counterintuitive until you understand the deeper game being played.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order in Tangipa v. Newsom allowing California's newly gerrymandered maps to take effect for the 2026 midterms. These maps, designed to counterbalance Republican gerrymandering in Texas, could deliver up to five additional House seats to Democrats.

The Consistency Test

At first glance, the decision follows a consistent legal principle. In January, the Court blessed Texas's Republican gerrymander in Abbott v. LULAC, not just permitting those maps but creating extraordinarily high barriers for anyone challenging legislative redistricting.

If the Court had struck down California's maps after such a broad ruling in the Texas case, the only explanation would have been naked partisanship.

But this is also the same Court that ruled Donald Trump can use presidential powers to commit crimes, and spent 2025 dismantling legal barriers to mass deportations and civil service purges. The Republican majority has repeatedly bent rules when they feel strongly about a case's politics.

The Spectrum of Judicial Decision-Making

The truth is more nuanced than either the Court's defenders or critics acknowledge. Neither the earnest believers in pure legal reasoning nor the bitter cynics who see only partisan calculation paint the complete picture.

Justices consider multiple factors: their preferred outcome, which party they sympathize with, their party's preferences, what their previous opinions require, and what the law actually says.

In technocratic cases without political controversy, all nine justices typically decide based solely on legal text. In highly contentious issues like abortion, personal preferences often dominate. Most cases fall somewhere on this spectrum.

Then there are cases like Tangipa, where justices' broader ideological commitments clash with their immediate preferences. It's safe to assume all six justices who granted Trump criminal immunity would prefer Republican control of the House. But they've staked out a strong ideological position against all gerrymandering suits—and that ideology appears to have trumped narrow partisan interests.

Politicians Do This Too

This behavior isn't unique to judges. Consider Nancy Pelosi's actions during the 2020 recession. With Trump in the White House during an economic crisis, Democrats had every electoral incentive to sabotage stimulus efforts and let Republicans take the blame.

Instead, Pelosi attacked Republicans for not doing more to stimulate the economy. When Republicans proposed a "skinny" stimulus package, she and Chuck Schumer denounced it as "emaciated." Pelosi's Democrats worked with Republicans to pass trillions in economic stimulus.

Why? Because Democrats, particularly Pelosi, have a longstanding ideological commitment to Keynesian economics—the belief that government should spend more during downturns. This commitment stretches back to the New Deal and Pelosi's experience managing the 2008-09 recession.

When Strategy Backfires

Republican commitment to voting restrictions offers another example. Last April, every House Republican supported the SAVE Act, requiring "documentary proof of United States citizenship" to register to vote. Chuck Schumer accused them of wanting to "restore Jim Crow."

But Republicans formed this ideological commitment decades ago, when low-turnout voters favored Democrats. Under Trump, this dynamic has reversed. Low-propensity voters now prefer Republicans, while the engaged suburban voters who supported Mitt Romney in 2012 have shifted toward Democrats.

So voting restrictions that Republicans embraced years ago might actually help Democrats today. Yet they persist because of ideological consistency, not electoral calculation.

The Gerrymandering Project

The Supreme Court's Republican justices have spent years dismantling anti-gerrymandering lawsuits. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), they shut down federal courts' ability to hear partisan gerrymandering cases. In Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2024), they went further, declaring that "a legislature may pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting."

Having abolished federal challenges to partisan gerrymanders, they've systematically weakened protections against racial gerrymandering. The recent LULAC decision imposed such high barriers that a state's racist intent would need to be extraordinarily explicit—think a "White Supremacist We Want to Bring Back Jim Crow Act"—before this Court would intervene.

So the Republican justices upheld a Democratic gerrymander in Tangipa not because they care about Democratic voting rights, but because it's consistent with their broader project to eliminate nearly all gerrymandering lawsuits.