In a Tuesday night per curiam order, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the State of Alabama, allowing them to proceed with using maps drawn in 2023 for the 2026 midterm elections. These maps included only one majority-minority district.
In a lower court ruling, a three-judge panel ordered the state to implement a second majority-minority district under the claim that the 2023 maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). On May 11, SCOTUS vacated that ruling and sent it back to the lower court. On May 26, this same three-judge panel once again blocked the use of 2023 maps on the same basis of violation of the VRA, without any consideration of the decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which held that maps drawn along racial lines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were no longer valid.
Alabama immediately filed an emergency petition to SCOTUS, which brings us to here.
BREAKING: #SCOTUS grants stay of decision blocking Alabama from using its 2023 maps. More litigation to come, but it appears Alabama will be able to use the 2023 maps for this election cycle - likely giving GOP +1 advantage for House seat.
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) June 3, 2026
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney-Barrett ruled in favor of the state. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
In the order, the court noted Alabama showed it was entitled to interim relief from the district court’s injunction and that the state would have likely succeeded with its appeals. It dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of "intentional vote dilution," stating, "the District Court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith, see Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024), because it interpreted the State’s legal disagreement with the court’s earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus."
It was also concluded that the district court's analysis "departed from Callais, and that Alabama "made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it." Then they issued this slap on the wrist to the district court:
We have repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not “alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
The Alabama legislature had already scheduled an August 11 special election to reconfigure the formerly two majority-minority districts to conform to the Callais ruling. The actions by the district court would have prevented that election from occurring.
Justice Sotomayor wrote in her 17-page dissent:
Weeks ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these cases would “unleash chaos and . . . confuse voters.” Caster, 608 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 4). Nevertheless, the Court forged ahead. Now the Court is squarely faced with a record of the turmoil it has caused and the harm it has wrought. Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos.
Read More: Alabama Redistricting Battle Is Back at SCOTUS, With a Lay-Up From the DOJ's Civil Rights Division
Alabama Map Fight Erupts Again As Federal Panel Defies SCOTUS Momentum
After receiving Alabama's emergency petition on May 27, Justice Clarence Thomas, who oversees the Northern District of Alabama, requested the plaintiffs respond by Monday, June 1. The plaintiffs did so and were extremely adamant that SCOTUS reject the petition, claiming:
In a series of filings, the civil rights groups and voters asked the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s ruling preventing the state from implementing a map that a three-judge panel found to be intentionally discriminatory towards Black Alabamians.
The plaintiffs urged the justices to keep the current 2024 congressional map in place, which includes two Black opportunity districts.
“Entering a stay so that Alabama can at the last minute replace a lawful plan with an unlawful and unconstitutional one would create chaos and would reward Applicants for their repeated false statements to this Court,” the plaintiffs wrote in one filing.
The state quickly submitted its reply brief Monday, reiterating its support for using the struck-down 2023 map in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which gutted much of the Voting Rights Act.
The plaintiffs' reply was rebuffed. As stated in the SCOTUS order, it gave the appearance of interference to prevent the August 11 special election from moving forward, which was not within the court's powers.
Now that SCOTUS has ruled, Alabama can get to the work of reassigning voters to appropriate districts.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued this statement on SCOTUS' decision.
🚨🚨🚨Major Victory Alert🚨🚨🚨
— Attorney General Steve Marshall (@AGSteveMarshall) June 3, 2026
Alabama's Congressional maps ARE constitutional and lawful.
Read more ⬇ pic.twitter.com/Uo8sDd204I
“Tonight’s decision is a major victory for Alabama and for the principle of self-governance. The United States Supreme Court confirmed what we always knew: that Alabama’s Congressional maps are constitutional and lawful under the Voting Rights Act. The Court’s decision to stay the district court’s injunction affirms that Alabama’s elected representatives, not federal judges, have the primary authority to draw the maps under which Alabamians choose their own leaders.
"The Supreme Court rightly recognized that its recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais fundamentally changes the legal landscape. The district court’s brazen refusal to apply that controlling precedent left the Court with no choice but to intervene and put a stop to the district court’s attempts to override the will of the people. The Court also acknowledged that a state enjoined from enforcing the laws passed by its own legislature suffers real harm.
"For too long, Alabama has been denied the full measure of its sovereignty by judges who insist on treating our state as though it never moved beyond the 1960s. No more. We have the same right as any other state to draw our own congressional maps according to our own legitimate districting objectives, without being held to a different and more burdensome standard by federal courts.
"The High Court agreed that Alabamians should elect their representatives under the map chosen through their democratic process. And we will not allow unelected judges to repeatedly redraw our State’s electoral maps in defiance of the Supreme Court’s own standards. We look forward to full vindication on appeal and will continue to defend Alabama’s right to conduct its own elections.”
Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Help RedState continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member