Florida’s top officials, including Attorney General Ashley Moody and Secretary of State Cord Byrd, have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a pending lower court ruling that is blocking a newly drawn congressional map designed by Republican lawmakers. The map, enacted following the 2020 census, was championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and reshaped district lines in a manner that opponents argue diluted Black voting strength.
At the heart of the dispute is the fate of a former majority-Black congressional district stretching from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. That district was dismantled in 2022 after DeSantis vetoed a legislature-backed map designed to preserve it. The governor, citing that the map created by lawmakers amounted to an unconstitutional “race-based” gerrymander, called for a special session and approved a new map instead.
Civil rights and voting rights groups responded with legal action, contending that the revised map violated Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment—part of the state constitution since 2010—specifically its “non-diminishment” clause, which prohibits the dilution of minority representation. They successfully convinced a trial court, and later a three-judge panel, that the new map unlawfully reduced Black electoral influence, prompting a temporary injunction preventing its use in upcoming elections.
However, this decision was reversed in December 2023 by Florida’s First District Court of Appeals. In a contentious 8–2 ruling, the appeals court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a distinct, geographically cohesive Black community across the former district’s stretch, casting doubt on the legal standard for what comprises a “politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group.” One dissenting judge sharply criticized the majority for delaying resolution, calling the handling of the case “to the detriment of voters, election officials and candidates.”
In response, the Florida Supreme Court granted discretionary review. Oral arguments were scheduled for September 12, 2024, focusing on whether the appeals court erred by raising the threshold plaintiffs must meet to prove violation of the state constitutional protections.
Voting rights advocates highlighted the historical and cultural ties linking Black communities from Jacksonville to Tallahassee, emphasizing long-standing shared experiences. An amicus brief filed in March 2024 by the Public Rights Project and 31 Florida leaders argued that those connections met the legal definition of a community of interest deserving protected representation.
Meanwhile, defenders of the map—backed by DeSantis’s team and Republican legislative leaders—maintained that the new district boundaries were permissible and race-neutral. They contended that maintaining the old district might itself constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under federal standards. They argued that being mindful of race in drawing districts is acceptable, so long as race isn’t the predominant factor.
Critics dismissed this as a smokescreen, calling it a transparent attempt to entrench GOP representation. They noted that the new configuration spread an estimated 370,000 Black Floridians across four mostly white districts, effectively reducing their electoral impact. Observers pointed out that this shift facilitated Republicans winning all four seats in North Florida in the 2022 midterms.
On the legal front, the plaintiffs assert that the Fair Districts Amendment is explicit: maps cannot diminish minority voters’ power. They argue that the appeals court wrongly equated this state-level standard with federal law under the Voting Rights Act, thereby raising the bar beyond what Florida voters intended. If the Florida Supreme Court finds the appeals court misinterpreted the protections, the map could be struck down and replaced—potentially before the 2026 elections.
However, the timing remains in flux. Florida’s Secretary of State has urged election supervisors to prepare for both maps—though ballots for future elections may already be printed. A final ruling could come months later, and is likely to be appealed further, possibly reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, experts say the outcome could ripple beyond Florida. If the state high court reinforces the lower threshold for proving unconstitutional diminishment, other states with similar constitutional protections may follow. Conversely, if judges require stricter proof of racial intent, it could narrow the scope of future challenges to partisan or racial gerrymanders.
As of June 2025, the case remains undecided. Florida officials have escalated the matter to the nation’s highest court, seeking a stay of the lower-court injunction to allow the DeSantis map to take effect in time for upcoming elections—or until the U.S. Supreme Court provides clarity on the constitutional threshold. The legal battle continues, raising fundamental questions about race, representation, and the legal standard for fair electoral maps.