June 3, 2026 Story by: Publisher
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 2, granted Alabama’s emergency request in a 6-3 decision to use its 2023 congressional map for the 2026 elections, allowing the state to move forward with a plan containing one majority-Black district.
The Court stayed a lower-court injunction that had required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map featuring two districts in which Black voters had an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
The ruling overturned a decision by a three-judge federal panel that found Alabama’s 2023 map was likely enacted with discriminatory intent and unlawfully diluted Black voting strength. In an unsigned three-page order, the Supreme Court said the state was likely to ultimately prevail on its claim that the map was lawfully drawn. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s decision “disregards both democratic values and the rule of law.”
Three-judge panel blocks Alabama from changing congressional map
A federal court on Tuesday, May 26, temporarily blocked Alabama from implementing a new congressional map that could have weaken Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued a preliminary injunction requiring the state to continue using the court-ordered congressional map adopted for the 2024 elections while the legal challenge proceeds. The panel also found that Alabama’s 2023 congressional map was intentionally discriminatory.
The dispute stems from Alabama Republicans’ effort to replace the current map, which includes two districts where Black voters have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, with a revised plan that would likely restore a stronger Republican advantage. Attorneys representing Black voters argued the proposed map would dilute Black voting power and create voter confusion close to the election cycle.
Lawyers representing Black voters in the state’s lengthy redistricting case had sought the preliminary injunction, arguing the same panel in 2023 found the state map was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters. They also argued Alabama was creating chaos by trying to change lines in the middle of an election year.
The ruling marks the latest development in the long-running legal fight over Alabama’s congressional districts following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Allen v. Milligan. Alabama officials are expected to appeal the injunction back to the Supreme Court as national battles over congressional redistricting intensify ahead of the midterms.
Key Findings of the Ruling
The panel of federal judges: Stanley Marcus, Anna M. Manasco, and Terry F. Moorer reached several critical conclusions:
- Intentional Discrimination: The court ruled that the GOP-led legislature’s 2023 plan was an intentional effort to dilute Black voting power in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
- Rejection of Partisan Defense: The judges sharply rejected arguments that partisan politics, rather than race, drove the map-drawing process, stating there was “no evidence of a partisan motive” in the record.
- Preservation of Progress: The decision ensures the continued use of a map with two majority-Black districts, whereas the blocked 2023 plan would have reverted to just one.
- Timing Concerns: The judges noted that attempting to switch maps so close to the November elections and the scheduled August 11 special primary would cause administrative chaos and voter confusion.
Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall says the state will immediately appeal the preliminary injunction blocking the state’s congressional map to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the three-judge panel has again struck down Alabama’s blandly unobjectionable congressional map that has been in place for decades. I find nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s vacatur order of May 11 that would provide a basis for this outcome; thus, we will immediately appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.”
Supreme Court ruling on Alabama’s congressional map
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, May 11, in a 6-3 ruling, cleared the way for Alabama to pursue a congressional map that could eliminate the state’s majority-Black district ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The move potentially allows the state to replace a court-ordered map containing two districts with substantial Black voting populations after arguing that recent changes in voting rights law following the court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais justify revisiting the state’s congressional boundaries.
The Alabama Attorney General’s Office on Friday, May 8, filed emergency motions in three separate cases with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to lift federal court injunctions that currently prevent the state from using its 2023 congressional map enacted after Allen v. Milligan and block changes to congressional district lines before 2030.
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Alabama to move forward with efforts to redraw its congressional map, warning that the ruling undermines the findings of the lower court.
“The Court today unceremoniously discards the District Court’s meticulously documented and supported discriminatory-intent finding and careful remedial order without any sound basis for doing so and without regard for the confusion that will surely ensue, Sotomayor wrote. “As with all vacaturs of this kind from this Court, the District Court remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Callais has any bearing on its Fourteenth Amendment analysis or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by that decision.”
Sotomayor was joined in dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Alabama asks the Supreme Court of the United States to allow the state to use its 2023 congressional map
In a 25-page filing, Alabama asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the state to use its 2023 congressional map, which contains one majority-Black district and a second district where Black voters make up a substantial portion of the electorate, instead of the court-ordered map adopted after Allen v. Milligan that created two districts in which Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who fields emergency requests from the area that includes Alabama, directed the challengers in the case to respond to the state’s request by Monday, May 11, at 5 p.m. EDT.
Alabama is specifically seeking permission to use the congressional map it adopted after the Milligan ruling, not the original 2021 map that federal courts previously found likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
A federal judge denied Alabama’s emergency request on Friday, May 8th to redraw its legislative map before the upcoming election. The request was filed by Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen following emergency request. For now, the current legislative map remains in place, as Alabama has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Both Alabama’s 2021 and 2023 congressional maps were challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for failing to create a second district where Black voters had an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
Federal courts ruled Alabama’s 2021 congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and later determined the state’s revised 2023 map failed to fully remedy that violation.
NAACP LDF urges Supreme Court to reject Alabama’s bid to restore disputed congressional map
A new filing by NAACP LDF urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Alabama’s request to reinstate its 2023 congressional map, arguing that state officials are attempting to relitigate issues already decided by the courts. The June 1 filing contends that Alabama’s map was found after trial to violate the Voting Rights Act and to have been enacted with discriminatory intent, and that the state has failed to show any basis for emergency relief.
The filing comes as Alabama seeks to replace the court-ordered map used in the 2024 elections, which includes two districts where Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
Alabama lawmakers approve plan for possible new U.S. House primaries
Alabama lawmakers on Friday, May 8, approved legislation that could trigger new congressional primary elections if federal courts allow the state to use a different congressional map before the 2026 midterms.
Under the legislation passed during a special session, Alabama could reschedule congressional primaries in districts affected by any court-approved map changes.
The move is closely tied to the long-running legal battle over Alabama’s congressional districts following Allen v. Milligan, in which federal courts ruled the state likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to create a second district where Black voters could elect candidates of their choice.
That ruling led to the creation of a second majority-Black opportunity district and the election of Democrat Shomari Figures in 2024.
The Alabama Legislature passed critical legislation on Wednesday, May 6, that could reset the state’s 2026 primary dates. The votes took place amid intense protests within the State House and severe weather that triggered an emergency evacuation of the building due to flooding.
HB 1, sponsored by Speaker Pro Tempore Chris Pringle (R-Mobile), authorizes a special primary election if the U.S. Supreme Court lifts an injunction, thereby allowing the state to revert to previously drawn congressional maps. Similarly, SB 1, sponsored by Senator Chris Elliott (R-Josephine), addresses two Montgomery-area State Senate districts.
The measures drew sharp condemnation from Democrats, who argued the bills are a strategic attempt to dilute Black political representation in the Legislature following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.
Background
Alabama Legislator convened for a special session on potential redistricting on Monday, May 5. Lawmakers will consider setting special primary election dates should the Supreme Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals end injunctions against the state redrawing congressional and state Senate districts.
Governor Kay Ivey officially called a special legislative session Friday to redraw Alabama’s congressional boundaries following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.
The state hopes that pushing those elections back will give them time to re-install congressional maps that had been blocked in court.
Alabama was scheduled to host its election on May 19.
Judge Manasco ruling
A federal judge ruled Friday, August 22, 2025, that Alabama’s current state Senate district map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voting laws that discriminate based on race. The ruling prohibits the use of the current map in the 2026 elections and requires lawmakers to create an additional majority-Black or near-majority-Black Senate district in the Montgomery region.
In a 261-page opinion in a lawsuit brought against the state by the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco, appointed by President Donald Trump, stated that to remedy the violation, the Alabama Legislature must create a new Senate district in the Montgomery area.
U.S. District Judge Manasco ruled that Alabama’s state Senate map violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) by unlawfully diminishing the voting strength of Black Alabamians. The ruling prohibits the use of the current map in the 2026 elections and requires lawmakers to create an additional majority-Black or near-majority-Black Senate district in the Montgomery region.
If state legislators failed to act, the court made clear that it will impose its own remedial plan.
But after a Wednesday, April 29 ruling from the Supreme Court that signals that Alabama might be allowed to use a previous map with just one Black-majority district, Ivey said Friday she wanted state lawmakers to reschedule the election.
The primary objective of the session is to move the state’s upcoming primary elections to a later date, providing lawmakers with the necessary time to redraw the political map in a way that complies with federal court mandates. This decision comes as the state continues to grapple with the fallout of redistricting challenges that have drawn national attention to its voting procedures.
“By calling the Legislature into a special session, I am ensuring Alabama is prepared should the courts act quickly enough to allow Alabama’s previously drawn congressional and state Senate maps to be used during this election cycle,” Ivey said in a statement Friday, May 1st, 2026.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey decides against a special legislative session to redraw the state Senate map
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey announced Friday, September 26, that she would not convene a special legislative session to redraw the state Senate map, despite a recent federal court ruling that found portions of the existing map, particularly in the Montgomery area, violate the Voting Rights Act.
The governor’s refusal underscores a broader legal and constitutional tension: how to reconcile race‑based remedial redistricting under the VRA with constitutional protections against racial classification.
“As the law currently stands, states like Alabama are put to the virtually impossible task of protecting some voters based on race without discriminating against any other voters based on race,” Ivey said in her statement. “I remain hopeful that we will somehow find the ‘magic map’ that will both satisfy the federal court and also be fair to all Alabamians. But as of today, I cannot justify the time and expense of calling a special session.”
Her refusal sets up a likely clash with the courts, which may now have to step in to fashion a remedial map if the Legislature fails to act.
Allen appealed Manasco’s ruling, citing the Supreme Court’s expected ruling in Callais v. Louisiana, which challenges the constitutionality of majority-minority district. Ivey also mentioned the case in her statement.
“In the meantime, I call on the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the law in this area as soon as possible and relieve states like Alabama from this no-win situation,” the statement from Ivey said.
Her declaration comes after a federal judge issued a ruling in August finding that the current Senate maps around Montgomery dilute Black voting strength and fail to satisfy Section 2 of the VRA.
Federal court decisions
In a unanimous decision Thursday, August 7, a panel of three district court judges in the Northern District of Alabama issued an injunction to keep in place a congressional map that includes two Black-majority districts through the end of the decade.
The map crafted by a court-appointed special master must remain in effect until the next regularly scheduled redistricting in 2030. The court will also retain jurisdiction over the case until the injunction expires.
The panel’s ruling effectively nullifies Alabama’s 2023 congressional map, which had defied earlier court directives by preserving only one Black-majority district despite evidence that a second could be drawn in compliance with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In their order, the judges underscored that the 2023 map was a clear violation of federal law and prior judicial instructions.
The case was originally brought in November 2021 on behalf of Evan Milligan, Khadidah Stone, Letetia Jackson, Shalela Dowdy, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Alabama, Legal Defense Fund, and Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher & Goldfarb.
In 2022, a three-judge federal court struck down Alabama’s 2021 map, ruling that it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power.
The court noted that Black Alabamians make up about 27% of the state’s population but under the old plan held only one of seven U.S. House seats (roughly 14% of representation). With voting patterns sharply polarized by race in Alabama, the court concluded that Black voters could not elect their preferred candidates in a second district under the 2021 plan.
The court ordered the state to draw a map with two districts in which Black voters would have a realistic opportunity to elect their chosen candidates.The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
In Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. (2023), the Court agreed that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their Section 2 claim against Alabama’s 2021 map. The Court’s 5-4 decision effectively mandated creation of a second majority-Black district.
In response, the Alabama legislature approved a new map in 2023 with one majority-Black district and a second district that was roughly 40% Black. The federal panel, however, still found that map intentionally discriminated against Black voters for failing to produce two Black-opportunity districts as required by law.
When Alabama’s legislature responded with a map that still contained only one such district, the federal court intervened and tasked a special master with producing a compliant map. That remedial map was used in the most recent election cycle and resulted in the election of Representative Shomari Figures, a Democrat, giving Alabama two Black-majority districts for the first time in modern history.
Sources: Alabama Reflector / Alabama Public Radio / AP News / NAACP LDF / Reuters
