Federal Judges Block Alabama’s Racially Discriminatory 2026 Congressional Map
A three-judge federal panel in Alabama, including two Trump appointees, struck down the state’s attempt to adopt a 2023 congressional map for the 2026 elections, ruling it intentionally discriminates against Black voters by reducing majority-Black districts from two to one. The ruling came after the Supreme Court cleared the way for redrawing. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey delayed primaries, and the state has filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, citing the recent Louisiana v. Callais decision.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Use New Congressional Map, Pausing Lower Court Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on June 2, 2026, allowing Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map for the upcoming 2026 elections, pausing a lower court ruling that found the map likely unconstitutional and discriminatory against Black voters. The conservative majority's decision blocks a lower-court order that would have required Alabama to use a map with two majority-Black districts, as used in 2024. The high court criticized the lower court for interfering in Alabama's ongoing primary elections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented, arguing the majority rewarded Alabama's defiance of previous court orders and allowed discrimination. The ruling follows the Supreme Court's recent invalidation of a Louisiana congressional map, which held that the Voting Rights Act does not require two minority opportunity districts. Alabama's map, adopted after that Louisiana decision, has one majority-Black district and favors Republicans in six of seven seats.
Roll CallAlabama Groups Urge Supreme Court to Block Congressional Map
Challengers to Alabama's latest congressional redistricting plan, including voters and Democratic officials, urged the Supreme Court on Monday to prevent the state from using a map found by a lower court to likely discriminate against Black voters. The groups argue the justices should keep the congressional lines used in the 2024 elections, which were implemented by a three-judge court after it found the state's first two maps discriminatory. Last week, the same court blocked the legislature-approved 2023 plan, and state officials have asked the Supreme Court to allow its use. The filings come amid fast-moving litigation following a Supreme Court decision that tossed out a Louisiana congressional map. The challengers argue Alabama has repeatedly attempted to draw discriminatory maps and that implementing the new plan at the last minute would create chaos. The National Republican Congressional Committee and the Trump administration have filed briefs siding with Alabama.
Roll CallAlabama Groups Urge Supreme Court to Halt Congressional Map
Challengers to Alabama's latest redistricting effort, including voters and Democratic officials, urged the Supreme Court on Monday not to allow the state to use a congressional map in the fall elections that a lower court found likely discriminated against Black voters. The groups argue the justices should keep the congressional lines used in the 2024 elections, which were implemented by a three-judge court after it found the state's first two maps discriminatory. Last week, the same court blocked a legislature-approved map (the 2023 plan), finding it still violated the Constitution. State officials have asked the Supreme Court to allow its use. The filings come amid fast-moving litigation following a Supreme Court decision that tossed out a Louisiana congressional map. The National Republican Congressional Committee and the Trump administration filed briefs siding with Alabama. The state held a primary in unchanged districts on May 19, with a runoff primary planned for August under the disputed map.
Roll CallAlabama Asks Supreme Court to Allow Use of New Congressional Map
Alabama officials have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a lower-court ruling that blocked the state's new congressional map, known as the 2023 plan, from being used in the fall elections. The state argues that the unanimous three-judge panel incorrectly found the map discriminated against Black voters and that the ruling interferes with the ongoing primary process. The applications, filed on May 27, 2026, urge the justices to act by Monday, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which overturned a similar map. The lower court had previously blocked the 2023 plan before the 2024 elections, leading to a court-approved map with five Republican-leaning and two Democratic-leaning seats. Under the 2023 map, Republicans would be favored in six of seven districts. The state held a primary in three unchanged districts on May 19, with a second primary scheduled for August in the four affected districts.
Roll CallAlabama Asks Supreme Court to Allow Use of New Congressional Map
Alabama officials have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a lower-court ruling that blocked the state's new congressional map, known as the 2023 plan, from being used in the upcoming fall elections. The state argues that the unanimous three-judge panel incorrectly found the map discriminated against Black voters and that the ruling interferes with the ongoing primary process. The applications, filed on May 27, 2026, urge the justices to act by Monday, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which overturned a similar map. The state contends the lower court's decision defies that precedent and violates the Purcell principle, which discourages federal courts from interfering in elections close to Election Day. The case is the latest in a series of legal battles over redistricting and racial gerrymandering in Alabama.
Roll CallAlabama Asks Supreme Court to Allow Use of New Congressional Map
Alabama officials filed emergency applications with the U.S. Supreme Court on May 27, 2026, asking the justices to halt a lower-court ruling that blocked the state's 2023 congressional map for the fall elections. The unanimous three-judge panel had found the map discriminated against Black voters. Alabama argues the ruling contradicts the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which overturned a similar map, and violates the Purcell principle against court interference close to elections. The state contends its map reflects neutral policy goals, not racial discrimination. The 2023 map would give Republicans an advantage in six of seven districts, compared to five under the court-approved 2024 map. The Supreme Court previously lifted a block on the map earlier in May, sending it back for reconsideration. The justices are asked to act by Monday.
Roll CallBlack Voters Score Major Victory as Alabama Congressional Map Struck Down
A federal three-judge district court panel in Alabama, including two Trump appointees, struck down the state's new congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander on May 26, 2026. The ruling rejected Alabama's attempt to reinstate a map with only one majority-minority district, which had been previously ruled racist by the Supreme Court in Allen v. Milligan. The state had sought to revive the map following the Supreme Court's April 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened the Voting Rights Act. The district court found that even after Callais, intentionally racist maps remain prohibited, and ordered Alabama to continue using a court-drawn 'special master map' with two majority-minority districts for upcoming elections. Alabama has indicated it will file an emergency appeal, with the author expressing skepticism that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court's decision.
Article | The NationFederal Judges Block Alabama Republicans' Congressional Map Citing Racial Discrimination
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Alabama struck down the state Republicans' attempt to adopt a 2023 congressional map, ruling that it intentionally discriminates against Black voters. The map, previously blocked three years ago, contained only one majority-Black district instead of the current two. The ruling came after the Supreme Court had cleared the way for Alabama to redraw its maps. Two of the three judges were appointed by former President Trump. The judges stated they could not allow the 2026 elections to proceed under a plan 'tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.' Alabama Republicans, who have pushed for the map despite protests and natural disasters, are expected to appeal. Governor Kay Ivey had delayed four congressional primaries in anticipation of the new map, which is now blocked.
The New RepublicTrump-Appointed Judges Block Alabama Republicans' 2026 Voting Map
A three-judge federal panel in Alabama, including two Trump appointees, struck down Republicans' attempt to adopt a 2023 congressional map for the 2026 elections, ruling it intentionally discriminates against Black voters. The map, previously blocked three years ago, would have reduced majority-Black districts from two to one. The ruling came after the Supreme Court earlier this month cleared the way for Alabama to redraw its maps. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey had delayed four congressional primaries in anticipation of the new map. The judges stated there was no justification for switching maps mid-election. Republicans are expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The New RepublicFederal Judges Block Alabama Republicans' Congressional Map Citing Racial Discrimination
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Alabama struck down the state Republicans' attempt to adopt a 2023 congressional map, ruling that it intentionally discriminates against Black voters. The map, which had been previously blocked three years ago, contained only one majority-Black district instead of the current two. The ruling came despite the Supreme Court earlier clearing the way for Alabama to redraw its maps. Two of the three judges were appointed by former President Trump. Alabama Republicans, who have pushed for the new map despite protests and natural disasters, are expected to appeal the decision. Governor Kay Ivey had delayed four congressional primaries in anticipation of the new map. The judges stated there was no convincing evidence to justify switching maps mid-election.
The New Republic