Full Breakdown
Alabama Seeks Supreme Court Stay to Use Contested GOP-Favored Congressional Map
5/28/2026, 9:11:59 AM
The Immediate Legal Battle
Alabama’s Republican leadership filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on May 27, asking the Court to pause a three-judge district-court order that bars the state from using its 2023 congressional map. The lower panel held the map “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination” because it would reduce Black-majority districts from two to one. If the stay is granted, the state will proceed with the map for the 2026 midterm elections, including special primaries scheduled for Aug. 11 in four districts.
Background: Voting-Rights Act, Prior Rulings, and Redistricting History
After the 2020 Census, Alabama’s GOP-controlled legislature adopted a 2023 map with a single Black-majority district out of seven seats. In 2023, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in *Allen v. Milligan* found the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and required a second Black-majority district. In April 2026, the Court’s ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais* narrowed the VRA’s applicability, prompting Alabama to revive the 2023 plan. A three-judge panel in 2023 had already ordered a remedial “race-blind” map for the 2024 elections, which produced two Black-majority districts.
Key Players
- Governor Kay Ivey (R) – signed the law enabling special primaries.
- Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) – leads the appeal.
- Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre – argues the map meets “core retention” goals.
- Judges Anna Manasco, Terry Moorer (U.S. District), and Stanley Marcus (U.S. Court of Appeals) – authored the injunction.
- Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissented from the Court’s order to remand.
- ACLU of Alabama, Black-voting coalitions – plaintiffs challenging the map.
- Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Mobile) and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Selma) – elected under the 2024 remedial map.
- House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter (R) and Minority Leader Anthony Daniels (D) – voiced partisan reactions.
Timeline of Recent Developments
- 2023: Three-judge panel finds 2023 map intentionally dilutes Black votes; orders two Black-majority districts.
- 2024: *Allen v. Milligan* affirms VRA violation; Court orders new map.
- Apr 2026: *Louisiana v. Callais* limits VRA challenges.
- May 26, 2026: District court issues preliminary injunction blocking 2023 map.
- May 27, 2026: Alabama files emergency petition for stay; Supreme Court vacates injunction and remands for reconsideration.
- Aug. 11, 2026: Planned special primaries in four districts, pending Court action.
Data & Statistics
Alabama’s population is roughly 27 % Black. The state has seven congressional districts, five held by Republicans and two by Democrats. The contested 2023 map would give Republicans a 6-1 advantage, eliminating one Black-majority district that currently provides a Democratic seat (Rep. Shomari Figures).
Why It Matters
The outcome will affect the balance of power in the U.S. House, where Republicans hold a narrow majority. It also tests the post-*Callais* scope of the VRA, setting a precedent for redistricting disputes in Texas, Florida, Missouri, and other Southern states.
Official Statements & Responses
Attorney General Marshall called the injunction “disappointing but unsurprising” and asserted that the state will win “when” the case is decided. Governor Ivey expressed confidence that the state “knows its people and districts best” and urged the Court to allow the Aug. 11 primaries. The three-judge panel emphasized “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination and declined to permit the 2026 elections under the challenged plan.
Criticism & Opposition
The ACLU of Alabama described the map as a “blatant attempt to deny Black voters a voice in Congress.” Rep. Figures called the decision “a significant step in the right direction.” Rep. Sewell warned that the court “made clear that tactics to silence Black voters will not stand.” House Speaker Ledbetter labeled the judges “activists” who are “handing Democrats congressional victories in the courtroom.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on whether the state currently has one or two Black-majority districts under the court-ordered map. The Supreme Court’s unsigned order to remand leaves the precise legal standard for reconsideration unclear. No definitive timeline has been set for a full Supreme Court ruling beyond the requested June 1 deadline.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Alabama and the public face irreparable harm … because they will be unable to use the State’s ‘duly enacted plans’ for the 2026 election. Worse still, voters will be forced to vote under a court-drawn racially gerrymandered map that does not meet Alabama’s legitimate districting goals.” — A. Barrett Bowdre, Alabama Solicitor General
- “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” — Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus
- “Know this — in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when,” — Attorney General Steve Marshall
- “The court saw through Alabama’s blatant attempt to reinstate a race-based congressional map that the legislature deliberately enacted to deny Black voters a voice in Congress,” — ACLU of Alabama statement
What’s Next
The Supreme Court must decide whether to grant a stay before the June 1 deadline. If granted, the 2023 map will be used for the Aug. 11 special primaries; if denied, the 2024 remedial map remains in force. The Court may also schedule oral arguments later in the year, potentially shaping redistricting jurisprudence nationwide.
