The U.S. Supreme Court as seen on April 9, 2026. The Supreme Court on Tuesday evening allowed Alabama to use a 2023 congressional map that was previously ruled racially discriminatory, blocking a lower court's ruling, in an August special primary. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday evening allowed Alabama to use a 2023 congressional map, reversing a lower court’s ruling that repeatedly deemed the map racially discriminatory.
In an unsigned 6-3 decision on the case known as Allen v. Milligan, the court wrote that the lower court’s map would not be “more convenient” for Alabama than the congressional map the Legislature passed in 2023.
“Here, the District Court interposed itself into Alabama’s ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representatives selected,” the justices wrote. “While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, states are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
The order comes almost a month after the U.S. Supreme Court substantially weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais, and weeks after Gov. Kay Ivey called a special session in which Republican lawmakers set special primaries for August in the expectation that the state would be allowed to use the 2023 map, which would likely cost Democrats a seat in Alabama’s House delegation.
Plaintiffs in the case Monday filed a 54-page brief urging the court to uphold the Northern District of Alabama District Court’s May 26 ruling that the Legislature-passed congressional map denied Black Alabamians the chance to elect a candidate of their choice.
The plaintiffs argued that there was no time to reassign voters under a new map; the 2023 map intentionally discriminated against Black Alabamians; and the lower court found the map still violates Section 2 after the Callais decision.
“Nothing has changed in Alabama or the record to warrant a different conclusion today. The Court should deny Alabama’s stay motion on any one or more of these independent grounds,” the brief stated.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor, joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the court’s opinion and warned the decision would set a precedent of chaos.
“Before the Court are two paths. Down one lies an orderly election, held under a tried-and-tested congressional map that protects Black Alabamians’ right to vote and with which all voters, elections officials, and candidates alike are familiar. Down the other lies a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians,” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority chooses the second path and disregards both democratic values and the rule of law. I respectfully dissent.”
Deuel Ross, an attorney for the plaintiffs with the NAACP Legal Defence Fund, wrote in a text Tuesday evening that the decision opens the door for Alabama and others to “deliberately and openly discriminate against Black voters without fear of any consequence.”
“The Court’s shameless decision to reinstate an intentionally racially discriminatory map defies any thoughtful or consistent application of the law,” Ross said. “We will continue to throw all of our resources into the fight to ensure that Alabama voters have the fair representation that they deserve.”
The Milligan plaintiffs said in a joint statement Tuesday evening that their fight for fair representation is not over.
“When politicians are worried about staying in power, they come for Black voters first,” they said. “This effort to silence our communities through an intentionally discriminatory map cannot be permitted to stand. We deserve a fair shot at electing officials, regardless of party, who understand our lives and our goals, and are responsive to our concerns.”
A three-judge panel last week upheld their previous ruling after being ordered to review the case by the Supreme Court under Callais. The panel said the map was still intentionally racially discriminatory, even though Republican lawmakers and state officials started arguing the map was drawn with partisan intent after the Callais decision.
The judges, U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco, U.S. District Judge Terry Moorer, appointed by President Donald Trump; and U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, appointed to the circuit by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in the 79-page opinion that the state’s argument contradicted its arguments made in 2023, and said the purpose of the 2023 map “was to distribute Black voters across districts to dilute their votes, at least in part because they are Black.”
“Counsel argues mightily that the Legislature’s partisan motives drove the creation of the 2023 Plan, but this enormous record contains no evidence of a partisan motive. And the only evidence on the issue cuts against one: Alabama’s legislative leadership testified that overtures from national party leaders did not affect their work,” the judges wrote last week.
The state appealed the order, requiring the use of a “race-blind” map used in 2024 and in the May 19 primaries for the 2026 elections, to the Supreme Court the next day. They requested an expedited response, but Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gave the plaintiffs six hours past the state’s requested decision time to respond.
The Alabama Attorney General’s Office argued that the 2023 map was drawn with partisan gain in mind, and only disobeyed the court’s order to draw a remedial map to avoid racial gerrymandering.
“It cannot be that the only constitutional map for the State to have drawn this redistricting cycle was one where white voters are drawn into white districts and given white representatives and Black voters ‘drawn into ‘Black districts’ and given ‘Black representatives,’’ a scheme ‘repugnant’ to the Constitution itself,” the appeal application stated.
Ivey called a special primary election in the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th congressional districts for Aug. 11. The statewide voter rolls locked on Tuesday, meaning that election officials had less than a day to reassign voters in 14 counties whose districts will change, according to testimony from the state’s election director.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the August special primary will proceed under the 2023 congressional map. Ivey on Tuesday morning extended the deadline for major parties to certify their qualified candidates to Tuesday at 5 p.m.
“Today’s decision is a win for the people of Alabama and our elections. Alabama is doing our part to keep America strong, and I am proud our state continues to fight the fight to ensure activists do not get the final say,” Ivey said in a statement Tuesday evening.
The Supreme Court did not repeal Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the Callais decision, which prohibits race-based discrimination in voting practices, but it required proof of intentional racial discrimination, a significantly higher standard than the previous one
In the Callais decision, the Supreme Court ruled that racial discrimination with intent does violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but redistricting in the name of party does not. Texas, California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and Virginia have either redistricted to give either party more guaranteed congressional seats in the 2026 midterm elections, or are in the process of doing so.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall celebrated the ruling in a statement Tuesday night, saying that federal judges should not draw legislative maps.
“The Court’s decision to stay the district court’s injunction affirms that Alabama’s elected representatives, not federal judges, have the primary authority to draw the maps under which Alabamians choose their own leaders,” he said. “The high court agreed that Alabamians should elect their representatives under the map chosen through their democratic process. And we will not allow unelected judges to repeatedly redraw our state’s electoral maps in defiance of the Supreme Court’s own standards.”
This story was updated at 9:53 p.m. to include a statement from Attorney General Steve Marshall.
From Alabama Reflector Post Url: Visit
Author: Anna Barrett