Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Clears Alabama’s Contested Congressional Map
6/6/2026, 4:13:19 AM
Core Event
On June 3, 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order in *Allen v. Milligan* that lifts a district-court injunction and permits Alabama to use a 2023 congressional map that eliminates one of the state’s two Black-majority districts.
Background, Litigation Timeline, and Legal Context
Alabama’s 2021 map, drawn with a single Black-opportunity district, was challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge panel (two Trump appointees, one Clinton appointee) found the map intentionally discriminatory in 2022 and again in 2025 after the legislature adopted a new plan. The Supreme Court upheld the 2023 decision. In April 2026 the Court’s *Louisiana v. Callais* opinion raised the burden for proving intentional racial discrimination and introduced a presumption of legislative good-faith, which the majority applied to reverse the lower court’s injunction.
Key Figures & Groups
Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority’s reference to *Callais*; Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Governor Kay Ivey and Attorney General Steve Marshall defended the ruling. NAACP General Counsel Kristen Clarke and NAACP Legal Defense Fund director Deuel Ross criticized it. The challenged map affected Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL) and drew opposition from Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL).
Data & Impact
Alabama’s population is about 27 % Black and the state has seven congressional districts. The prior map produced two Black-majority seats; the Court-approved map would likely reduce Democratic representation to one seat, giving Republicans a potential gain of one House seat in a chamber with a razor-thin majority.
Official Statements
Governor Ivey called the decision “a win for the people of Alabama,” emphasizing state sovereignty in redistricting. Attorney General Marshall said the order confirms that elected officials, not federal judges, have primary authority over district lines. NAACP General Counsel Clarke warned the ruling “strips Black voters of power” and creates election chaos. Deuel Ross said the decision “gives cover to Alabama and others to discriminate without consequence.”
Criticism & Opposition
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent argued the Court “debases the democratic process” and forces a chaotic election that would require reassigning up to 600,000 voters in days. Rep. Sewell described the ruling as “devastating to democracy.” Civil-rights groups contend the order undermines the Voting Rights Act’s purpose of protecting minority voting strength.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The district court found “undisputed evidence” of intentional discrimination, yet the Supreme Court majority held the panel “failed to follow *Callais*” and did not give sufficient weight to the presumption of good-faith. Sources differ on whether the lower court’s findings remain binding after *Callais*.
Verbatim Quotes
- “We have not overruled Allen,” — Justice Samuel Alito, majority opinion
- “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,” — Unsigned Supreme Court majority
- “Now the Court is squarely faced with a record of the turmoil it has caused and the harm it has wrought.” — Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissent
- “The Supreme Court’s decision gives cover to Alabama and others to deliberately and openly discriminate against Black voters without fear of any consequence.” — Deuel Ross, NAACP Legal Defense Fund
What’s Next
The lifted injunction allows Alabama to hold its August 11 special primary under the contested map, while the three-judge panel is slated to revisit the case after the election. Further litigation is expected through 2027, and other Southern states are watching the precedent as they consider their own redistricting plans.
