U.S. Supreme Court on April 9, 2026 The Supreme Court on Tuesday evening allowed Alabama to operate its 2023 congressional map, which had previously been found to be racially discriminatory and blocked a lower court ruling, in an August special primary election. (Photo: Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
On Tuesday night, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Alabama to operate its 2023 congressional map, overturning a ruling by a lower court that had repeatedly found the map racially discriminatory.
In an unsigned 6-3 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, the court wrote that the lower court map would not be “more convenient” for Alabama than the congressional map passed by the Legislature in 2023.
“Here, the District Court joined the State of Alabama in its continuing efforts to conduct its upcoming 2026 congressional elections under maps selected by its elected representatives,” the justices wrote. “While federal courts should not impose changes before an election, states can decide for themselves whether last-minute election changes are in their best interests.”
The ruling came almost a month after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling Art. has been significantly weakened. 2 of the Electoral Law Act in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais and weeks after Governor Kay Ivey called: special session in which Republican primary voters set a special primary for August, expecting the state to be able to operate the 2023 map, which will likely cost Democrats a seat in Alabama’s House delegation.
Plaintiffs in the case filed a 54-page brief Monday in which they urge the court to uphold the May 26 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama that the congressional map adopted by the Legislature deprived Black Alabamians of the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.
The plaintiffs argued that there was no time to reassign voters under the novel map; the 2023 map intentionally discriminated against Black Alabamians; and the lower court found that the map still violated Section 2 after the Callais decision.
“Nothing has changed in Alabama or in the record that would justify a different motion today. The Court should deny Alabama’s motion to suspend on one or more of these independent grounds,” he said. brief he stated.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed with the court’s opinion and warned that the decision would set a precedent of chaos.
“There are two paths before the Court. One is an orderly election, conducted under a tried and tested congressional map that protects the right of Black Alabamians to vote and with which all voters, election officials and candidates are familiar. The second is a chaotic election, conducted under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians,” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority chooses the latter path and disregards both democratic values and the rule of law. I respectfully disagree.”
Deuel Ross, a lawyer for the plaintiffs with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, wrote in a text message Tuesday evening that the decision opens the door for Alabama and others to “intentionally and openly discriminate against Black voters without fear of any consequences.”
“The Court’s shameless decision to reinstate an intentionally racially discriminatory map flies in the face of any thoughtful and consistent application of the law,” Ross said. “We will continue to commit all of our resources to the fight to give Alabama voters the fair representation they deserve.”
Milligan’s plaintiffs said in a joint statement Tuesday night that their fight for fair representation is not over.
“When politicians worry about staying in power, they look first to black voters,” they said. “Efforts to silence our communities through a deliberately discriminatory map cannot be allowed to be deliberate. We deserve fairness in electing officials, regardless of party, who understand our lives and our goals and are responsive to our concerns.”
Last week, a three-judge panel upheld its previous ruling ordered a retrial of the case by the Supreme Court, presided over by Callais. The panel said the map did still constitutes deliberate racial discriminationeven though Republican lawmakers and government officials started arguing that the map was drawn with partisan intentions after the decision in Callais.
Judges: U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco, U.S. District Judge Terry Moorer, appointed by President Donald Trump; and U.S. District Judge Stanley Marcus, appointed to the circuit by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 79-page opinion that the state’s argument conflicted with arguments presented in 2023 and said the purpose of the 2023 map “was to spread Black voters across districts in order to dilute their votes, at least in part because they are Black.”
“The attorney argues forcefully that the Legislature’s partisan motives led to the creation of the 2023 Plan, but this massive record contains no evidence of partisan motive. And the only evidence in the case contradicts one thing: Alabama’s legislative leadership testified that requests from national party leaders did not influence their work,” Justices wrote last week.
The the state appealed this decisionrequiring the operate of the “race-blind” map used in 2024 and in the May 19 primary election before the 2026 election, to the Supreme Court the next day. They requested an expedited response, but Superior Court Judge Clarence Thomas gave the plaintiffs six hours past the state’s required deadline to respond.
The Alabama Attorney General’s Office argued that the 2023 map was drawn for partisan gain and merely defied the court’s order to draw a remedial map to avoid racial gerrymandering.
“It cannot be that the only constitutional map of the state on which this cycle of redistricting was outlined was one in which white voters were drawn into white districts and assigned white representatives, and black voters were drawn into ‘black districts’ and assigned ‘black representatives’ – a pattern ‘abhorrent’ to the Constitution itself,” the appellate motion stated.
Ivey called special primary election in the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th congressional districts on August 11. Statewide voter rolls will be locked on Tuesday, meaning election officials had less than a day to reassign voters in the 14 districts whose redistricting will change, according to testimony from the state elections director.
In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision, the August special primary election will be held under the 2023 congressional map. On Tuesday morning, Ivey extended the deadline for the major parties to certify their eligible candidates until Tuesday at 5 p.m.
“Today’s decision is a victory for the people of Alabama and our elections. Alabama is doing everything we can to keep America strong, and I am proud that our state continues to fight this fight to ensure that activists do not have the last word,” Ivey said in a statement Tuesday evening.
The Supreme Court did not repeal Art. in the Callais decision. 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in voting practices but required proof of intentional racial discrimination, a much higher standard than the previous one
In the Callais decision, the Supreme Court held that intentional racial discrimination did violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but redistricting on behalf of a party did 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.
The hardest hit would be Alabama’s court-appointed 2nd Congressional District; the black voting age population (BVAP) would decline from 48.7% to 39.9%. That would likely make the district, currently represented by U.S. Rep. Shomari Figurs, D-Mobile, lean Republican. In a Tuesday evening statement, the figures said the Supreme Court’s decision set “the nation back decades.”
“Too many people have fought and sacrificed for me to have the opportunity to serve in Congress for me to simply walk away. I will remain in this fight to build a better future for Alabama and a better country,” he said. “I will not be deterred by this coordinated effort to enable Republicans to stay in power in November – and I know voters will not be deterred either.”
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the ruling in a statement Tuesday night, saying federal judges should not draw legislative maps.
“The Court’s decision to stay the district court’s injunction confirms that Alabama’s elected representatives, not federal judges, have primary authority to draw the maps by which the people of Alabama elect their own leaders,” he said. “The Supreme Court has agreed that Alabamians should elect their representatives based on a map chosen through a democratic process. And we will not allow unelected justices to repeatedly redraw our state’s electoral maps in defiance of the Supreme Court’s standards.”
This story was updated at 9:53 p.m. to include a statement from Attorney General Steve Marshall. The update was later updated at 9:10 a.m. Wednesday to include a statement from U.S. Rep. Shomari Figurs, D-Mobile.
This story was originally produced by Alabama reflectorwhich is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network that includes the Ohio Capital Journal and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
