Supreme Court Allows Alabama GOP Map for 2026 Elections

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday night granted Alabama’s emergency request to use a congressional map that gives Republicans a significant advantage in the 2026 midterm elections, rejecting a lower court’s finding that the map was drawn with intentional racial discrimination against Black voters. The 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, allows Alabama to hold special primary elections on August 11 under a map that creates only one majority-Black district in a state where 27% of the population is Black.

The Ruling

The Court’s six conservative justices — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — formed the majority in an unsigned opinion that said the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith” when it blocked the 2023 map. The justices determined that Alabama is “likely to succeed on the merits” of its argument that the map is lawful, according to SCOTUSblog.

The ruling came just hours after a critical deadline, with the Court acting shortly after 9 p.m. EDT on June 2. Alabama Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre had argued that the Supreme Court’s April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais — which significantly weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — “vindicates Alabama’s position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan.”

The Map in Dispute

The 2023 state-drawn map, adopted after the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan found an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act, again created only one majority-Black district. A three-judge federal district court blocked it, finding “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination. A court-appointed special master then drew a map with two majority-Black districts, which was used in the 2024 elections and led to the election of two Black Democrats to Congress, including U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures.

After the Supreme Court’s Callais decision, Alabama moved to implement the 2023 map. The lower court reviewed the case again but on May 26 reaffirmed its finding, stating it “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,” as reported by The Guardian.

The Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a sharply worded 17-page dissent. She described two possible paths: “Down one lies an orderly election, held under a tried-and-tested congressional map that protects Black Alabamians’ right to vote… Down the other lies a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians.” The majority, she concluded, “chooses the second path and disregards both democratic values and the rule of law.”

Sotomayor argued that the lower court’s finding of intentional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment was “independent of, and unaffected by” the Callais decision, which addressed statutory claims under the Voting Rights Act.

Reactions

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the ruling, calling it “a major victory for Alabama and for the principle of self-governance,” according to his official statement. Governor Kay Ivey confirmed that special congressional primaries will proceed on August 11 under the 2023 map, saying “Alabama knows our state, our people and our districts best.”

Voting rights advocates condemned the decision. Deuel Ross, Director of Litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said in a press release that “the Court’s shameless decision to reinstate an intentionally racially discriminatory map defies any thoughtful or consistent application of the law.” Davin Rosborough of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project added that the ruling “cannot be squared with the Constitution or Voting Rights Act.”

Broader Implications

The decision is the latest and most consequential development in a wave of redistricting battles following the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais ruling. That decision made it harder for plaintiffs to prove racial discrimination in redistricting by requiring proof of intentional discrimination and limiting how racial polarization in voting can be demonstrated. Republicans in several Southern states, including Louisiana, have moved to redraw maps to reduce the number of majority-minority districts.

The ruling could have national implications for control of the U.S. House, where Republicans currently hold a slim majority. Even a small number of seat changes in Alabama and other states could determine which party controls Congress after the November midterms.

What’s Next

Special primary elections in four Alabama congressional districts are scheduled for August 11, with the general election set for November. The district court has scheduled a full re-trial of the case for no later than January 2027, but the 2026 elections will proceed under the challenged map. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has vowed to continue fighting, stating it will “throw all of our resources into the fight to ensure that Alabama voters have the fair representation that they deserve.”