SCOTUS Greenlights Alabama’s Congressional Map — Again

For the second time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to halt a lower court blockade against Alabama’s preferred congressional map.

The latest incident came Tuesday evening when the high court issued a per curiam opinion effectively greenlighting the Yellowhammer State’s ability to use its 2023 map — which includes a single majority-minority district — in the upcoming 2026 midterms. The ruling was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

As The Federalist previously reported, the Supreme Court vacated a series of lower court rulings last month that had previously resulted in Alabama having to use a map with two majority-minority districts. Such affirmative action districts were created under prior interpretations of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to Democrats’ benefit.

In that order, the high court remanded the case back to the lower judiciary in light of its recent Louisiana v. Callais decision, which curtailed states’ ability to engage in race-based redistricting. The ruling came amid Alabama’s efforts to revive its 2023 map for the 2026 election cycle following Callais‘ release.

Rather than adhere to the spirit of Callais, however, the district court once again entered an injunction blocking the 2023 map. Much like before, they contended that the map “intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution,” and argued that the GOP-controlled legislature “intentionally enacted a plan to dilute Black voting power in Alabama” by trying to implement the 2023 map, according to The Center Square.

In its Tuesday opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that, “At this preliminary stage, the State has shown that it is entitled to interim relief from the District Court’s injunction.” The majority noted that Alabama has satisfied several factors warranting a pause of the injunction — namely, that it “is likely to succeed on the merits” of its claims and that it “has also made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it.”

The high court went on to criticize the district court for “depart[ing]” from Callais in its “analysis” of the state’s claims. The justices similarly rebuked the lower court for “fail[ing] to follow our instruction in Callais that the mere fact that voters of different races vote for different parties is not relevant to proving racially polarized voting patterns.”

“Here, the District Court interposed itself into Alabama’s ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representatives selected,” the per curiam opinion reads. “Its view that conducting the elections under court-imposed maps would be more convenient for the State was not a valid justification for that intervention. 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.”

Writing for the dissent, Sotomayor outlandishly accused her conservative colleagues of partaking in what she claimed were Alabama’s efforts to host a “chaotic election … under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians.” In choosing this “path,” she wrote, the majority “disregards both democratic values and the rule of law.”

“Weeks ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these cases would ‘unleash chaos and . . . confuse voters.’ … 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,” Sotomayor wrote. “Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos. Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.”

The Supreme Court’s pause of the district court’s injunction will remain in effect “pending the timely filing of a petition” asking the court to take up and hear arguments in the case, if such a petition is filed. The stay will terminate if the petition is denied or if SCOTUS agrees to consider the matter and hands down a final judgement in the case.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood