Alaska wildlife agents can resume shooting and killing black and brown bears — including from helicopters — as part of a plan to help recover a caribou herd that was once an important source of food for Alaska Native hunters, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Two conservation groups, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and Center for Biological Diversity, sought to halt the program while their lawsuit challenging its legality plays out. But Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman said the groups had failed to show that the state acted without a reasonable basis for approving the plan.

The timing of the ruling is important: The Mulchatna caribou herd in southwest Alaska is expected to begin calving soon. The babies are particularly susceptible to being eaten by bears or wolves.

State officials see the bear-killing program as important to helping the caribou herd recover. The herd, which once provided up to about 4,770 caribou a year for subsistence hunters from dozens of communities, peaked at around 190,000 animals.

But the caribou population began declining in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and by 2019 numbered around 13,000 animals. Last year, the population was estimated around 16,280, according to the state Department of Fish and Game. Hunting has not been allowed since 2021.

The state killed 180 bears from 2023 to 2024, most of them brown bears, plus 11 more last year, according to the conservation groups’ lawsuit. According to the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, 99 bears, including 20 cubs, were killed by the state from the air in less than a month in 2023.

The groups argue that the Alaska Board of Game last year authorized reinstating the program without key data on the bears’ population numbers and sustainability.

Cooper Freeman, Alaska director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement the groups want to see the caribou herd thrive, “but the state simply hasn’t shown that the unrestrained killing of bears is going to help us get there.”

“We need to stop this disgraceful waste of the state’s limited resources and work based on science to protect all our wildlife,” Freeman said.

State attorneys have said that officials took a “hard look” at factors related to bear numbers in adopting the plan. Alaska is home to an estimated 100,000 black bears and 30,000 brown bears.

“The herd has persisted at low numbers but started showing a positive response since 2023, when bear removal during calving seasons began,” they wrote in a court filing.

The Alaska Department of Law welcomed Zeman’s decision “to allow this management program to continue during the upcoming caribou calving season, a crucial time for herd recovery,” spokesperson Sam Curtis said by email. The department represents the board and Department of Fish and Game.

“Continuing this program makes sense in light of the scientific record,” Curtis said.

Attorneys with Trustees for Alaska, representing the conservation groups, are reviewing the ruling and “will consider all available options,” spokesperson Madison Grosvenor said by email.

The program has been the subject of ongoing litigation. A judge last year, in a case previously brought by the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, found fault with the process in which it was adopted and concluded the state lacked data on bear sustainability.

Emergency regulations implemented by the state were later struck down. A subsequent public process was announced surrounding plans to reauthorize the program, which the board did last July.

According to the Alaska Wildlife Association, a group of state biologists in 2020 determined that the main reasons for the herd’s decline were disease and a lack of food and “bear predation isn’t even in the top three identified causes of mortality among the Mulchatna herd.”

“We are concerned that big game management in Alaska has become a process whereby population objectives for wild ungulates are established based on public demand rather than on habitat capacity, promoting unsustainable management,” the alliance says in a position paper.

WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, Democrats in Washington had a message: The rules of redistricting have changed, and California — the nation’s biggest blue bastion — may have a further role to play.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should “play by the same set of rules” as Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed to fight in “the Deep South and all over the country.” And Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, was blunt: “I’ll take 52 seats from California, I sure would. And 17 seats from Illinois.”

The calls for action came as Republican governors in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississipppi and Tennessee called special legislative sessions to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Florida has also approved new maps that could give the GOP four more seats in the House, and President Trump urged other Republican states to follow suit.

The Republican response has intensified the pressure on Democrats to act, including those in California — where the ruling could upend not just congressional maps, but also legislative and local races.

“We can’t allow this national gerrymandering effort of Republicans to go unanswered,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach). “If Republicans go for it, I think we have to leave all options on the table.”

For now, California’s response is far from settled.

The chair of the California Democratic Party said there are no current plans to redraw maps — just months after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a mid-decade redistricting backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The Democratic consultant who drew the state’s current congressional district boundaries says an all-blue map, while possible to create, would probably hurt Democrats more than help them in the long run. And some of the state’s congressional Democrats are worried the impulse to match Republican partisan efforts would be bad for the American electorate.

“Rather than accelerating a race to the bottom, the next step is to dial it down because you can reach a point of no return,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), one of the state’s most prominent Black lawmakers. “And that’s where we’re headed.”

What California decides — and when — will matter at the national level. With 52 congressional seats, no state has more to offer Democrats in a redistricting war. But experts, lawmakers and party officials say the path forward is more complicated than the calls from Washington suggest.

California could see 48 blue seats, out of 52

That’s in part because California already acted. In 2025, voters approved Proposition 50, which drew new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. The new maps, which could yield as many as 48 Democratic seats out of 52, are already in effect, and voters have begun receiving their mail-in ballots.

Going farther is not currently on the table — at least not yet.

“We have yet to fully win the seats in the map that was drawn in 2025. It seems a step too far to say we’re going to go back to the drawing board and redraw the map,” said Rusty Hicks, the chair of the California Democratic Party.

Hicks said it doesn’t mean the issue could not become part of a future discussion, but he said Democrats in other states should not look past what California has already done.

“We’re trying to pick up 48 of them. How much more do you want us to pick up? You want us to make it 52 blue? Well, you all should get into the fight,” Hicks said. “You all should pick up some seats. Let’s all do this together, because California cannot do it alone, it will take the rest of the country.”

Others are not convinced the most aggressive option makes the strategic sense in California.

Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting consultant who drew California’s Proposition 50 congressional maps, said the push for a 52-0 delegation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a partisan map would perform in the state over time.

“A 52-to-zero map would have the potential of backfiring,” Mitchell said. “In 2026, we could pick up 52 seats. But then in 2028 or 2030 — a bad year for Democrats, let’s say — Democrats lose 11 of those seats. You’ve drawn these districts so demonically to a Democratic advantage in a good year that in a bad Democratic year, they don’t have the ability to withstand the challenge.”

Ruling could jeopardize state’s voting rights law

The political debate over congressional maps has so far dominated the conversation in Washington. But legal scholars and redistricting experts say the ruling could also have consequences in California’s city hall, school board and county supervisor races.

The justices’ ruling, decided by the court’s conservative majority, says states cannot consider race to create majority-minority electoral districts while allowing them take partisan interests into account.

“A purely partisan map is actually more defensible now than one drawn with racial considerations,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA. “It turns the world on its head.”

The ruling now puts at risk any district drawn at any level of government that relied on the Voting Rights Act to justify its boundaries, Hasen said.

And in California, that uncertainty extends to districts drawn under the state Voting Rights Act, which extends protections for minority voters beyond the federal law, he said. The state law was not directly at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, but Hasen argues the court’s reasoning could provide new legal grounds to challenge the state law as potentially unconstitutional.

Cities including Santa Monica and Palmdale have faced lawsuits alleging their at-large City Council elections diluted the Latino vote. Palmdale settled its case and agreed to switch to district-based elections; Santa Monica’s case is ongoing. Hasen argued that the cities, as well as other bodies, such as school boards, could now return to court to challenge whether district maps drawn as a result of the California Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.

“That has not been tested yet,” he said, but he fears the same arguments made to challenge the federal Voting Rights Act could be made against the state law.

At the state level, Republican strategist Matt Rexroad sees the ruling affecting the California Legislature as well. He argues the boundaries drawn for the state Assembly and Senate districts are racial gerrymanders.

“Those legislative lines, I would argue, are unconstitutional,” Rexroad said. “And those lines are probably going to change by 2028.”

But Rexroad’s biggest concern goes beyond any single set of maps: It is the future of California’s independent redistricting commission, the nonpartisan body he has spent years defending.

A threat to independent redistricting

Rexroad sees a scenario in which the national political environment gives California Democrats little incentive to return the map-making power to the commission. If Republican states continue to aggressively redraw maps, Democrats will have another justification to keep power in the Legislature’s hands, the same argument made to pass Proposition 50, he said.

“I don’t think the California redistricting commission has ever been in greater jeopardy than it is right now,” he said.

J. Morgan Kousser, a historian who has testified as an expert witness in voting rights cases for 47 years, said California’s commitment to the commission may depend on how aggressive Republican states act in redistricting.

“If we go back to an all-white South in Congress, California may not go back to a fairness standard,” Kousser said. “It may not disarm. It may rearm.”

Mitchell, the redistricting consultant, said that he hopes California and other states choose the path of disarmament and that there is a national push for independent commissions in every state.

“This isn’t good for anybody,” he said. “This was all basically a nerd war over lines that didn’t actually improve any districts anywhere.”