Supreme Court Lets Alabama Use Disputed 2026 Map

The Supreme Court on the night of June 2 cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional map in the 2026 elections that lower courts found to be racially discriminatory, SCOTUSblog reported.

In a four-page, unsigned order issued after 9 p.m. EDT, the court held that the lower court's analysis departed from the justices' April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which made it harder for plaintiffs to prevail on claims that a map violates a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, according to SCOTUSblog. The justices divided 6-3, CBS News reported. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The order pauses a May 26 ruling by a three-judge federal panel — one Clinton appointee and two Trump appointees — that had barred Alabama from using its 2023 map and directed the state to use a map drawn by a court-appointed special master instead, court records show. The panel had ruled unanimously that the legislature's map was "tainted by intentional race-based discrimination," according to NPR.

What the court said

The majority concluded that Alabama was likely to succeed on the merits, rejecting the lower court's finding that the state violated the Constitution by intentionally diluting Black residents' voting power. The lower court, the majority wrote, should have presumed that the legislature acted in good faith in adopting the 2023 map, according to SCOTUSblog's June 3 report.

The majority also held that the district court's decision, not Alabama's request for relief, came too late, citing the court's repeated warnings that lower federal courts should not alter election rules on the eve of an election.

In a 17-page dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the majority's order paved the way toward "a chaotic election" and "disregards both democratic values and the rule of law." "Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent," Sotomayor wrote.

How the dispute got here

The litigation began in 2021, when Alabama enacted a new congressional map after the 2020 census. Black voters and civil rights organizations sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing the map divided Black voters in the southern part of the state among three districts, leaving them a minority in each. A lower court blocked that map, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2023.

Alabama then drew the 2023 map, which a federal panel also struck down, concluding it was an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians' voting strength. On May 11, the Supreme Court sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Callais. The panel again barred the map on May 26, and Alabama filed its emergency application at the Supreme Court on May 27, the filings show. Like other state legal officers who defend their states' election laws — a role detailed in TCL's profiles of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Ohio's Dave Yost — Alabama's lawyers argued the state, not federal judges, should control its districts.

The Trump administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Alabama. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the district court's order came too late and that federal courts lack license to interfere with election rules at the eleventh hour, according to court filings.

Reaction to the order

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall praised the ruling, saying in a statement that it "affirms that Alabama's elected representatives, not federal judges, have the primary authority to draw the maps under which Alabamians choose their own leaders."

Deuel Ross, director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented one set of challengers, said the order "defies any thoughtful or consistent application of the law" and gives cover to states to discriminate against Black voters, according to his statement.

Election law experts told NPR the order could invite more late-cycle redistricting, with UCLA law professor Richard Hasen saying the court has "closed the door on intentional discrimination claims."

What happens next

The order likely closes a five-year dispute, SCOTUSblog reported. The challengers had told the justices that reassigning voters for a special primary election on Aug. 11 was administratively impossible, and that the state's voter registration records had to be finalized by June 2, court filings summarized by SCOTUSblog show. The Alabama Legislature passed a law in May allowing a special primary election for affected congressional districts if a federal court permitted the state to restore the 2023 map.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Alabama map case?

In an unsigned June 2 order, the court stayed a lower court ruling that blocked Alabama's 2023 congressional map, allowing the state to use that map in the 2026 elections. Three justices — Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson — dissented.

Why had lower courts blocked Alabama's map?

A three-judge federal panel found the 2023 map intentionally diluted Black voters' strength in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The panel ordered Alabama to use a map drawn by a court-appointed special master instead.

What is Louisiana v. Callais and why does it matter here?

Callais is the Supreme Court's April 29, 2026, decision striking down a Louisiana map with a second majority-Black district. It made it harder for plaintiffs to win claims that a map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the majority said the Alabama panel failed to follow it.

Is the Alabama redistricting litigation over?

SCOTUSblog reported the order was likely the final chapter in a dispute that began in 2021. The stay lets Alabama conduct its 2026 congressional elections under the map its legislature adopted in 2023.

Sources

Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.