The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

Washington, DC – A super PAC linked to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has made its first major venture into the United States midterm elections.

But this time around, the pro-Israel lobby group is not targeting a progressive candidate pushing to reset US-Israel policy, but a so-called “moderate” Democrat who tepidly questioned Washington’s unconditional military support amid the genocidal war on Gaza.

The $2.2m spending by the United Democracy Project (UDP) targeting former US Representative Tom Malinowski in advance of the Democratic primary in New Jersey on Thursday comes as polls have consistently shown surging dismay among Democratic voters over unwavering US support for Israel.

Amid shifting views, critics see the spending strategy as a wider message to candidates as they prepare for party primaries in the months in the run-up to the 2026 midterm elections, which will determine the makeup of the US Senate and House of Representatives.

“It shows that they are very concerned, obviously, about the shifting perspective of especially Democrats on funding for Israel, and they’re very, very keen to keep Democrats elected who are out of touch with the Democratic electorate more broadly,” Sadaf Jaffer, a former member of the New Jersey General Assembly, who has herself been a critic of Malinowski’s past refusal to take a harder line on Israel, told Al Jazeera.

Candidates in the 11-way primary are running to represent a largely suburban district in central New Jersey considered increasingly Democratic-leaning. The special election is scheduled for April 16.

However, UDP’s strategy appears focused on Malinowski, neither AIPAC nor its super PAC have explicitly endorsed Tehesha Way, the former lieutenant governor of New Jersey, although she has won the endorsement of another pro-Israel lobby group, the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI).

“It may be [AIPAC’s] sense is that this is a way to scare those in the middle of the road, who have started to express some concerns about what’s going on and the funding that’s being sent to Israel,” Jaffer said.

“It seems very excessive … but it may be an investment in trying to intimidate others who are watching,” she said.

A familiar strategy

Parts of the strategy have become familiar. In the US elections in 2024, the UDP poured about $35m into party primaries, with the biggest buys aimed at scuttling Democratic candidates who called for cutting off aid to Israel.

That included a combined $24m against progressive congressmembers Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, who both lost their races to opponents running to their right.

Like the messaging targeting those candidates, the advertisement campaign against Malinowski has not specifically referenced Israel; instead, it focuses on more domestic issues, including Malinowski’s past stock trades and his 2019 vote in support of an annual Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill.

The line of criticism comes as support for US immigration, and the DHS sub-agency ICE, has tanked among Democratic voters amid the administration of US President Donald Trump’s mass deportation drive.

Usamah Andrabi, the communications director of Justice Democrats, an organisation that supports progressive candidates regularly targeted by AIPAC, called the approach particularly disingenuous, noting that AIPAC had previously endorsed Malinowski despite the DHS funding vote.

During his previous three runs for Congress, Malinowski received more than $378,000 from pro-Israel groups, including those affiliated with AIPAC.

“It’s interesting, as always, to see that again, you’re not going to see a single television ad actually talking about their, quote ‘single issue’: Israel,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Tom Malinowski is no champion for progressive values or for the Palestinian people, but he is not going to ask ‘how high?’ when they say, ‘jump’,” Andrabi told Al Jazeera. “And that’s not enough for AIPAC. They truly demand unconditional support for their policies.”

Malinowski had previously served as Washington director of Human Rights Watch, which, during his tenure, lobbied for US aid not to be used in Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights.

But as a congressman from 2019 to 2023, Malinowski took a distinctly divergent path in Congress, including petitioning against conditioning US aid to Israel.

Malinowski, who also served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labour under former President Barack Obama, has further enraged pro-Palestine advocates by suggesting that using the terms “genocide” and “apartheid” to describe Israel’s approach towards Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank fuels anti-Jewish sentiment in the US.

Nevertheless, the candidate has become a vocal critic of AIPAC’s approach in advance of Thursday’s vote, condemning the “dark-money” influence on the race.

“I committed one sin in their minds,” Malinowski told a small group of supporters in mid-January, as reported by the New Jersey Globe news site.

“I was not willing to tell them that I would unconditionally, unquestionably, blindly support any request for assistance that Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel might make. That position puts me in the mainstream, not just of all Americans, but of the Jewish and pro-Israel community in this country,” he said.

‘A sour taste’

The UDP’s spending has also been condemned by other pro-Israel lobbying groups, including J Street, which supports Israel, but has staunchly criticised providing a “blank cheque” to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“It weakens bipartisan support, alienates the next generation – Jewish and non-Jewish alike – and ties Israel’s fate to the most corrosive elements of American politics,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of the group, which has endorsed Malinowski, said in a January post on Substack.

AIPAC and UDP did not respond to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment on the spending initiative’s objectives.

But Beth Miller, the political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, which advocates for Palestinian justice through US policy, saw the attack on Malinowski as in line with AIPAC’s increasing embrace of the Republican Party, which remains staunchly pro-Israel. She pointed to UDP’s history of relying on donations from wealthy conservatives to influence Democratic primaries.

Former assembly member Jaffer noted that the super PAC had not targeted Analilia Mejia, a progressive in the race who has won endorsements from US Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Some analysts have suggested AIPAC may see a win-win approach in targeting Malinowski, either leading to the success of a candidate like Way, who led the New Jersey-Israel Commission and has been embraced by many right-wing Israeli news outlets, or a candidate like Mejia, who could be seen as more vulnerable against a Republican in the general election.

Miller said the spending “should show every other candidate that there is no middle or centrist lane that will protect them from AIPAC spending attacks”.

“Democratic candidates watching the NJ special election should learn that the politically and morally correct move is to fully embrace Palestinian rights and demand an end to US complicity in Israel’s apartheid and genocide,” she told Al Jazeera.

Both Andrabi and former assemblywoman Jaffer, meanwhile, saw potential for the approach to backfire, particularly as AIPAC has become an increasingly toxic brand in some segments of the Democratic party.

“It’s definitely the most I’ve heard people who are not particularly interested in Israel-Palestine talking about AIPAC,” Jaffer told Al Jazeera, adding that outside spending in the race has left a “sour taste” for some New Jersey residents.

Andrabi added that it was “interesting to see the moderates of the world and the corporate Dems becoming willing to comment on [AIPAC] now that one of their own is getting eaten alive by this spending”.

That comes as AIPAC and UDP have amassed a $100m war chest heading into 2026.

“What [AIPAC] is really doing is expanding the base of people who don’t like AIPAC and who will vote against candidates for being supported by AIPAC,” he said.

Khan Younis, Gaza Strip – When Rotana al-Raqab learned that her name and her mother’s were included on the first list of Palestinians allowed to return to Gaza through the Rafah crossing, she felt, briefly, that the long months she had spent stranded in Egypt were finally coming to an end.

But what she initially believed would be a path back to her five children instead turned into a gruelling ordeal of hours of waiting, body searches, interrogations, and humiliating treatment at the hands of Israeli forces.

Rotana, 31, left Gaza last March with her mother, Huda Abu Abed, 56, seeking urgent medical treatment after being told she needed a major heart operation.

They left behind Rotana’s six children with family members, who at the time were displaced in the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis.

Throughout the separation, Rotana says the fear of what was happening at home – as Israel continued its genocidal war on Gaza – never left her.

“All that time, I was on edge, waiting for the crossing to open so that I could return to my children,” she told Al Jazeera.

“My husband was injured in an Israeli strike, and I was nearly going mad with fear and worry. I spoke with them every day despite how hard calls and internet access were.”

From Egypt to Rafah 

Rotana and Huda found out that they would be allowed to return to Gaza the day before the crossing partially opened on Monday.

They were contacted by the Palestinian embassy in Cairo, which gave them the news that they were among the names on the first list of those crossing.

The reopening of the crossing is part of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal, which the United States said had begun in mid-January, despite the continuation of Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Rafah is the only border crossing from Gaza that does not cross Israeli territory. But it has been largely closed since Israeli forces took control of it in May 2024.

Multiple returnee testimonies indicate that the crossing is functioning only partially, allowing very small numbers of people to use it on each side.

Reports from the opening days show that some travellers were sent back at the Palestinian side of the crossing, despite having already cleared Egyptian procedures, often for unspecified “security screening” reasons, or over the size of their luggage, without a detailed official explanation from Israeli authorities.

According to Egyptian officials, roughly 50 people reached the Palestinian side of the crossing on Tuesday, but Israeli authorities forcibly returned 38 of them, permitting only 12 to enter Gaza after extensive searches, detentions, and interrogations.

Rotana describes approximately 50 travellers being present on the Egyptian side of the crossing on Monday.

After completing procedures there, the group waited for hours for the Palestinian side of the gates, under the control of Israel, to open, a delay that lasted until evening hours.

But even then, not everyone was allowed to pass.

“At first, they let nine people through and told [others] to wait. A little later, they let [some of us] pass, but the rest were sent back,” she said, adding that she believed Israel was behind the decision.

Egyptian media – citing Egyptian officials – also reported that roughly 50 people reached the Palestinian side of the crossing on Tuesday, but that Israeli authorities forcibly returned 38 of them, permitting only 12 to enter Gaza after extensive searches, detentions, and interrogations.

Since its partial reopening on Monday, the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza has allowed only very limited movement.

In the first days of operation, just more than 120 people have crossed according to the Gaza Ministry of Interior – the majority of them returning to Gaza – while dozens more, including patients in need of urgent medical care, were prevented from crossing.

Palestinian health authorities report that tens of thousands remain on waiting lists, including more than 18,500 patients requiring specialised treatment unavailable inside Gaza, as a result of Israel’s devastation of the enclave.

Israel has framed the restrictions as being necessary for security reasons.

Body searches and interrogation

Finally, by Monday evening, Rotana and Huda were able to cross to the Palestinian side, where the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EUBAM Rafah) are operating.

Rotana thought that their ordeal was finally over – and that she would finally be able to reunite with her children and husband. Instead, she met a new phase of hardship.

“They put us into a vehicle flanked by Israeli army cars, one in front and one behind and then stopped us in an open area,” she said.

There, Rotana and the others were subjected to full-body searches carried out by a woman accompanied by two men who identified themselves as part of “counterterrorism forces” – an apparent reference to Palestinian militias working with the Israeli military in Gaza.

“One of them told us they were fighting terrorism and lived in a ‘humanitarian city’, welcoming anyone who wanted to join them,” she added.

“I didn’t engage with his remarks, and then they began scolding us because we wanted to return to Gaza.”

Following this, Rotana was taken for interrogation by an Israeli military officer, which she said lasted for three hours. “It was interrogation, pressure, and degrading language,” she recounted.

Rotana said she and the others were insulted by the officer, who attempted to provoke them, and called them “humiliated”.

She remembered being asked, “Why did you come back to Gaza? Do you want to live in a tent without water or electricity? Or on a roof that doesn’t exist?”

“I tried to hold myself together and not let his words affect me,” she said.

Huda described having her hands bound and eyes covered before she, too, was interrogated.

“[An Israeli soldier] even told me to tell my family to prepare immediately for forced relocation from Gaza,” she said, referencing the threat by the Israeli right-wing to force Palestinians to leave Gaza in what would be ethnic cleansing.

During her own two hours of detention, Huda was separated from her daughter and said the experience was frightening.

“I was terrified. The place around me was dark and empty like a desert, and I didn’t know where they had taken Rotana and the other women, until they released me and I saw them again in the bus,” she said.

Return

In a press statement, the International Commission to Support Palestinian People’s Rights (ICSPR) strongly condemned the strict Israeli restrictions on the operation of the crossing, saying that they had turned “travel and return [to Gaza] into a symbolic procedure that falls short of a genuine and comprehensive opening”.

The ICSPR added that Israeli restrictions – including requiring pre-approved security clearances, imposing strict passenger quotas, and enforcing complex procedures for travel – had turned the Rafah crossing “into a tool of control and domination rather than a humanitarian passage”.

The organisation also condemned the treatment of Palestinians at the crossing, including beatings, humiliating body searches, prolonged handcuffing, confiscation of personal belongings, and threats of arrest.

When Rotana and Huda were finally allowed to continue their journey, they found that Israeli forces had confiscated nearly all of what they had packed for the children.

“I brought toys and headphones for my daughters … things to make them happy,” Rotana said.

“They took everything. Even food was forbidden,” she explained. “I had promised my children sweets, something to celebrate with after months of hardship, but they took all of it.”

Despite it all, reuniting with Rotana’s children – Huda’s grandchildren – was at the forefront of their minds.

“I returned with my daughter even before I completed my treatment because her children couldn’t bear to be apart from her any longer,” Huda told Al Jazeera.

“In the end, we are returning to our country no matter what, so why were we treated this way?”

After a long and exhausting day, Rotana and her mum arrived in Gaza late at night on Monday, at the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis.

“The journey was deadly … but thank God, we finally arrived and reunited with our loved ones,” Rotana said calmly.

“What happened to us was an attempt to discourage us from returning to our land. But where would we go? This is our home, no matter what.”