Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. When we left off last week, the Supreme Court faced a simple but important test: After the court’s Republican-appointed majority approved Texas’ congressional map, would it likewise approve California’s?

The court passed the test this week, when it rejected a Republican appeal that sought to halt California’s Democratic-friendly map, which voters passed in response to the Donald Trump-spurred Texas map.

Of course, it was a test of the court’s own making, prompted by its weak gerrymandering jurisprudence in recent years and its December decision to green-light the Texas map while strongly hinting that it would also back California’s. When the court sided with Texas, the most conservative justices defended the move on the grounds that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

So, the court kept its implicit promise. That’s good.

Noting the potential windfall for Democrats in the midterms, The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board said that angry Republicans “can blame Mr. Trump for starting the race to the gerrymander bottom.”

The court has many tests ahead this term, including another election-related case, from Louisiana, with implications for the future of voting rights. It’s also due to rule on tariffs, birthright citizenship and much more in the months ahead. With the justices set to return to the bench later this month — that’s the soonest we’d get the tariffs ruling — any action before then would come on the shadow docket, like this week’s California order. There’s another, unrelated emergency appeal from that state that the justices could decide at any time, regarding teachers telling parents if their kids express “gender incongruence.”

And there’s always new litigation from people trying to get the justices to take their cases. One of those hopeful litigants is Steve Bannon, who wants the court to review his challenge to his contempt conviction for blowing off the House Jan. 6 committee. The Trump Justice Department initially waived its opportunity to respond to Bannon’s petition — suggesting to the justices that they should deny it outright — but then the court called for a response. It’s due Monday, so we’re slated to start the week with seeing the Trump government’s stance on the Trump ally’s appeal, as Bannon teased the presence of military personnel and immigration agents at midterm polling sites. It always comes back to the elections.

Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them through this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.