Alabama Republicans Seek Supreme Court Clearance for New Congressional Map

On April 29, 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that struck down Louisiana’s congressional map because it relied too heavily on race, thereby weakening a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The ruling held that challenges to district lines now require direct evidence of discriminatory intent, raising the bar for future VRA claims.

Reuters

• Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General, filed the emergency petition asking the Court to lift a lower-court injunction.

The Hill

• Kay Ivey, Republican governor, signed the revised map into law on the same day.

The Hill

• Alabama Legislature, controlled by Republicans, passed the redistricting bill that would eliminate one majority-Black district.

UsNews and World Report

• U.S. Supreme Court, currently reviewing the petition.

The Hill

• U.S. District Court, which ordered Alabama to create a second majority-Black district.

UsNews and World Report

• Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and allied groups, who secured the injunction and oppose the new map.

The Hill

Alabama’s seven congressional districts currently include two majority-Black districts, both represented by Black Democrats. Black voters comprise roughly one-quarter of the state’s electorate and tend to support Democratic candidates. Republicans argue that the revised map, based on “lawful policy goals,” will improve their prospects in the November midterm elections.

Reuters

Marshall’s filing contends that Alabama’s situation mirrors the Louisiana case and should be resolved “with this year’s elections run with districts based on lawful policy goals, not race.” The petition seeks a swift order—by Thursday—to allow the map to take effect. Governor Ivey’s signing of the legislation signals the state’s readiness to implement the plan pending judicial clearance. The district court’s injunction, issued after a 2023 ruling that Alabama’s prior map with only one majority-Black district likely violated the VRA, remains in force until the Supreme Court acts. State officials have offered to hold a special primary closer to November if the Court permits the new boundaries.

The Hill

The Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and other plaintiffs argue that the redrawing would diminish Black voting power and create logistical confusion, noting that overseas ballots for the May 19 primary had already been mailed. They have asked the Court to maintain the injunction, emphasizing that the proposed map “erroneously ordered at best and unconstitutional at worst.”

The Hill

A clear conflict exists between the district court’s order mandating a second majority-Black district and the Republican request to lift that order. The Supreme Court’s April 29 precedent suggests a higher evidentiary burden for VRA challenges, yet the lower court’s injunction remains operative, leaving the ultimate legal standard unsettled.

Reuters

• “Alabama’s case mirrors Louisiana’s, and they should end the same way: with this year’s elections run with districts based on lawful policy goals, not race,” — Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General

UsNews and World Report

• “Americans, no less in Alabama, deserve a republic free of racial sorting now, and state officials deserve an opportunity to give it to them,” Marshall replied in its emergency filing.” — Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General

The Hill

• “After enacting a racial gerrymander, Louisiana is now free to hold elections under a lawful map consistent with its policy goals. Alabama seeks the same opportunity,” — Steve Marshall’s office

The Hill

• “Plaintiffs would have Alabama hold elections under a map that was erroneously ordered at best and unconstitutional at worst.” — Steve Marshall’s office

The Hill

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the emergency petition by Thursday. If the Court lifts the injunction, the revised map could be used for the November midterms; otherwise, Alabama may need to conduct a special primary election. The outcome will shape the balance of congressional seats and set a precedent for how the April 29 ruling is applied to future redistricting disputes.

The Hill