Federal Judge Blocks Alabama Map Over Racial Discrimination

A three-judge federal panel on Tuesday blocked Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional redistricting map, ruling that it “intentionally discriminated based on race” against Black voters — delivering a significant setback to GOP efforts to gain a House seat in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision prevents Alabama from using a map that would have eliminated one of the state’s two majority-Black congressional districts, preserving the current 6-1 Republican-to-Democrat split in the state’s House delegation.

The Ruling

The panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from using its 2023 congressional map, which would have created only one majority-Black district instead of two. The judges ordered Alabama to continue using the court-ordered map drawn by a special master that was used in the 2024 elections, which includes two districts where Black voters constitute a majority or close to it.

“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,” the judges wrote in their opinion, as reported by the Associated Press. “We again cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory.”

The panel consisted of Judge Stanley Marcus of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, a Clinton appointee, along with U.S. District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer, both Trump appointees. The unanimous ruling is notable given that two of the three judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

A Multi-Year Legal Battle

The Alabama redistricting case has been winding through the courts since 2021, when Black plaintiffs first sued the state over its congressional map, alleging dilution of Black voting power. The case, originally known as Merrill v. Milligan, reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023, where the court surprised many observers by upholding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a 5-4 decision in Allen v. Milligan. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority, ordering Alabama to create a second majority-Black district.

According to NBC News, Alabama lawmakers responded by passing a map that still contained only one majority-Black district — a move the district court rejected as an act of defiance. A court-appointed special master ultimately drew the map used in the 2024 elections, under which both majority-Black districts elected Democrats.

The Callais Earthquake and Alabama’s Response

The legal landscape shifted dramatically on April 29, 2026, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, significantly weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that race could not be the “predominant factor” in drawing districts unless strict criteria were met, effectively making it harder to create or maintain majority-minority districts.

As The Guardian reported, Alabama took the extraordinary step of moving its imminent congressional primary and sought to implement the 2023 map. Gov. Kay Ivey called a special legislative session on May 1, and on May 11, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction blocking the 2023 map, sending the case back to the district court for reconsideration. Alabama held its primary elections on May 19 under the existing map, while Ivey scheduled special primaries for August 11 in four districts that would have been affected by the switch.

Why the Panel Rejected the Map

The three-judge panel distinguished the Alabama case from Callais by grounding its ruling in the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause rather than the Voting Rights Act. The court found that the 2023 map was enacted with “intentional race-based discrimination” — a finding based on an extensive evidentiary record developed over years of litigation.

“When the Legislature enacted the 2023 Plan, it made a calculated, purposeful decision to refuse to provide the remedy for discriminatory vote dilution that our order (affirmed by the Supreme Court) required,” the panel wrote, as cited by Fox News. “The Legislature well knew that a plan without an additional Black-opportunity district would dilute Black Alabamians’ opportunity to participate in the political process, and it intentionally enacted that very plan.”

Reactions and Next Steps

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall vowed to “immediately appeal” the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Know this — in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when,” Marshall said, describing the blocked map as a “blandly unobjectionable congressional map.”

Rep. Shomari Figures, the Democrat who holds the seat that would have been eliminated, welcomed the ruling but cautioned that the fight is not over. “This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled,” Figures said, as reported by CBS News.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called on the Supreme Court to reject any appeal. “The American people must be permitted to decide who gets to represent them in Congress, not Donald Trump,” Jeffries said.

Deuel Ross of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said the ruling “again vindicated the constitutional rights of voters in the Black Belt.”

Broader Implications

The Alabama ruling is the first major test of whether the Supreme Court’s Callais decision permits challenges to maps drawn with discriminatory intent — a distinction Justice Alito explicitly preserved in his majority opinion. The outcome could affect similar redistricting efforts across the South, including in Tennessee, which has already enacted a new map eliminating a majority-Black district in Memphis; Louisiana, which is poised to eliminate a majority-Black district; and South Carolina, where the legislature is considering a plan that could void June primary results.

President Donald Trump has urged GOP-led states to aggressively redraw their congressional maps following the Callais ruling, as part of a broader push to maintain the party’s slim House majority. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, the Supreme Court may need to rule on an expedited basis to resolve the uncertainty over Alabama’s district lines.

What to Watch For

The case is almost certain to reach the Supreme Court, potentially on an accelerated timeline given the proximity to the November elections. Key questions include whether the court will take up the appeal before the August 11 special primaries, and whether the current conservative-leaning court will uphold the panel’s finding of intentional discrimination. The ruling could ultimately define the remaining scope of voting rights protections in the post-Callais era.