Utah U.S. Reps. Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens turned to federal court late Monday, asking a judge to block a congressional map they argue tilts political odds toward Democrats. The lawsuit was filed with a little more than a month remaining before Utah candidates typically must file for re-election, and it targets how the state handled redistricting after a state judge rejected maps backed by the Republican-led Legislature.
According to the complaint, Utah’s constitutional and U.S. constitutional framework gives primary redistricting authority to the Legislature, and it challenges the role a judge played when the court imposed a replacement district map instead of letting the Legislature’s enacted plan stand. The filing also invokes a broader separation-of-powers argument, asserting that “courts have no authority to draw a congressional map,” and it seeks to return to districts that were last approved by the Legislature in 2021 unless lawmakers come up with new maps.
The fight traces back to decisions by Utah’s trial court involving a new congressional map and the standards approved by voters in 2018 to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor a party, a practice often described as gerrymandering. In August, the judge, Dianna Gibson, ruled that the Legislature’s districts violated those voter-approved standards and, in November, she rejected a replacement map passed by the Legislature and instead imposed an alternative map submitted by plaintiffs that include the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government.
In response to the new federal lawsuit, the League of Women Voters of Utah said the map currently in place is “fair and legal,” according to Katharine Biele, the organization’s president. The Legislature’s attorneys, meanwhile, have sought review in Utah’s top court, asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Gibson’s ruling.
The updated state map also figures into the federal complaint’s argument about timing and electoral preparation. The lawsuit says Maloy and Owens have not yet filed for re-election and argues that “their districts have been shifted to a point where the Representatives do not know which district to choose,” portraying the uncertainty as practical and immediate for candidates working toward November elections.
Utah’s redistricting timeline has also been affected by shifting deadlines. While Utah candidates typically file by Jan. 8, lawmakers pushed back this year’s filing deadline to March 13 for congressional candidates, and the lawsuit arrives against that backdrop of compressed election planning.
Beyond Utah, the case fits into a larger national pattern of legal disputes over House districts. The Associated Press reported that Utah is among several states still in court battles over congressional maps ahead of the midterms, including a separate New York dispute in which a judge ordered a New York commission to redraw the only Republican-held U.S. House seat in New York City after ruling that the district unconstitutionally dilutes the votes of Black and Hispanic residents. The U.S. Supreme Court is also considering an appeal tied to a Democratic-backed redistricting plan approved by California voters, and Missouri courts have been weighing challenges to a new map passed by that state’s Republican-led Legislature.
Redistricting urgency, the lawsuit context notes, intensified after President Donald Trump prodded Republicans in Texas to reconfigure their U.S. House districts to seek an advantage in the midterm election. After a mid-decade gerrymandering battle, legal disputes have continued in multiple states, including Democratic-led Maryland and Virginia, where new litigation has emerged during the current election cycle.
Meanwhile, in Utah, Republicans currently hold all four of the state’s U.S. House seats based on districts drawn by state lawmakers after the 2020 census. And as the court challenges proceed, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill over the weekend expanding the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven, with new justices expected to be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate—an expansion Cox said is not politically motivated.