The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional redistricting map that federal courts had previously blocked under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In a Monday ruling, the justices overturned a lower court order prohibiting the state from employing the 2023 map. The decision sends the dispute back to district court for further review.
This move follows the Court’s recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, where it struck down a majority-Black congressional district as an unconstitutional gerrymander. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning that the order would cause confusion for Alabamians ahead of next week’s elections.
The legal battle began after Alabama enacted its new congressional map in 2023 following the 2020 census. Black voters and civil rights organizations challenged the map in federal court, arguing it diluted voting strength by spreading residents across three districts, leaving them minorities in each. A district court initially found the map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and barred its use.
In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld that ruling in Allen v. Milligan. Alabama then adopted a revised map, but federal courts later determined it also violated Section 2. The state requested expedited review ahead of an upcoming primary election. A court-appointed special master created a temporary map after district court intervention, and in 2025, a trial concluded the 2023 map “intentionally diluted Black Alabamians’ voting strength.”
Alabama officials moved swiftly to have the Supreme Court expedite their case ahead of the May 19 primary. The state’s Attorney General, Steve Marshall, described the decision as affirming legislative authority: “Now, the power to draw Alabama’s maps goes back to the people’s elected representatives.” Republican House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter called it “a massive victory not just for Alabama, but for conservatives across the country.”
Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL) criticized the ruling, stating it risks reverting Black political representation to the 1950s and 1960s: “We will organize, we will register, and we will turnout people in record numbers at the polls.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor noted that while the Voting Rights Act violation was addressed, Alabama could still face claims of intentional discrimination under the 14th Amendment.
