Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Use New Congressional Map, Potentially Reshaping 2026 Midterms
In a 6-3 order issued Monday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated lower-court injunctions that had blocked Alabama from using its 2023 congressional redistricting map, clearing the way for the state to potentially revert to a plan with only one majority-Black district for the 2026 midterm elections.
The unsigned order remands the long-running Allen v. Milligan litigation and related cases back to a three-judge federal panel in Alabama, instructing the court to reconsider its May 2025 ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais. That earlier ruling sharply narrowed the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, striking down a Louisiana map that created a second majority-Black congressional district as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall hailed the development as a victory for the state. “The injunctions cannot survive the Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais,” his office said in a statement filed earlier this month.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She wrote that the lower court had found “evidence of discriminatory intent” in the legislature’s actions and warned that the majority’s approach risks undermining longstanding protections for minority voters.
A Decade-Long Battle Over Black Voting
The case traces back to Alabama’s 2021 congressional map, drawn after the 2020 census. With seven U.S. House seats and a Black population of roughly 27 percent — concentrated in the state’s Black Belt region — civil rights groups and Black voters argued that the map unlawfully “packed and cracked” Black voters into just one majority-Black district (District 7, long held by Rep. Terri Sewell, D). The remaining six districts were overwhelmingly white and Republican-leaning. A three-judge federal panel agreed in 2022 that the map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In a landmark 5-4 decision in June 2023 (Allen v. Milligan), the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority alongside the court’s three liberals and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The decision required Alabama to create a second racially-manufactured district “in which Black voters have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.”
Instead of complying, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed a 2023 map that still contained only one majority-Black district based on where the constituents lived. The same three-judge panel rejected it, appointed a special master, and ordered a remedial map — Remedial Map 3 — featuring two districts where Black voters make up a substantial share of the electorate. That map was used in the 2024 elections, resulting in Alabama sending two Black Democrats to Congress for the first time in state history: Sewell and Rep. Shomari Figures in the newly competitive 2nd District.
The Callais Ruling Shifts the Landscape
The April 2026 Callais decision changed the legal calculus. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito held that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black district was an impermissible use of race that violated the Equal Protection Clause, even if intended to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The ruling raised the bar for plaintiffs challenging maps under Section 2 and cast doubt on race-conscious remedies in redistricting.
Within days, Alabama officials — including Gov. Kay Ivey, who called a special legislative session — and Secretary of State Wes Allen asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunctions blocking the 2023 map. A federal court denied an emergency stay on May 8, stating it lacked jurisdiction while the matter was pending before the nation’s highest court.
Monday’s order effectively hands the state a path to use the 2023 map, at least pending further proceedings. Legal experts say it could lead to new primaries or other adjustments in affected districts ahead of the November midterms. Voting rights advocates condemned the move. The ACLU of Alabama called it “a step backward for fair representation,” noting that the court-ordered map had already produced historic Black representation without disrupting the state’s overall partisan balance.
Republican leaders, meanwhile, argued the decision restores legislative authority over redistricting and prevents federal courts from engaging in “racial sorting.”
